203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34969535)
21. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.
Ramirez PT; Frumovitz M; Pareja R; Lopez A; Vieira M; Ribeiro R; Buda A; Yan X; Shuzhong Y; Chetty N; Isla D; Tamura M; Zhu T; Robledo KP; Gebski V; Asher R; Behan V; Nicklin JL; Coleman RL; Obermair A
N Engl J Med; 2018 Nov; 379(20):1895-1904. PubMed ID: 30380365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Survival outcomes of minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: A single-center retrospective study.
Yeon Choi H; Park JW
Medicine (Baltimore); 2023 Apr; 102(17):e33702. PubMed ID: 37115056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Long-term oncological outcomes and recurrence patterns in early-stage cervical cancer treated with minimally invasive versus abdominal radical hysterectomy: The Norwegian Radium Hospital experience.
Sert BM; Kristensen GB; Kleppe A; Dørum A
Gynecol Oncol; 2021 Aug; 162(2):284-291. PubMed ID: 34083029
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Primary conization overcomes the risk of developing local recurrence following laparoscopic radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer.
Bogani G; Ditto A; Chiappa V; Pinelli C; Sonetto C; Raspagliesi F
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2020 Oct; 151(1):43-48. PubMed ID: 32511745
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. The efficacy of pre-operative conization in patients undergoing surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.
Wang Y; Ma B; Li W; Li P
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2023 Nov; 49(11):106995. PubMed ID: 37527959
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of abdominal and minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in patients with early stage cervical cancer.
Kim SI; Lee J; Hong J; Lee SJ; Park DC; Yoon JH
Int J Med Sci; 2021; 18(5):1312-1317. PubMed ID: 33526992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The Role of Conization before Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer including High Risk Factors of Recurrence: Propensity Score Matching.
Chang CS; Min JS; Song KH; Choi CH; Kim TJ; Lee JW; Kim BG; Lee YY
Cancers (Basel); 2022 Aug; 14(16):. PubMed ID: 36010857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. [Long-term oncological outcomes after laparoscopic versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in stage I a2- II a2 cervical cancer: a matched cohort study].
Wang W; Shang C; Huang J; Chen S; Shen H; Yao S
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2015 Dec; 50(12):894-901. PubMed ID: 26887872
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Laparotomic radical hysterectomy versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy using vaginal colpotomy for the management of stage IB1 to IIA2 cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.
Yang EJ; Kim NR; Lee AJ; Shim SH; Lee SJ
Medicine (Baltimore); 2022 Feb; 101(8):e28911. PubMed ID: 35212297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Oncologic Outcomes of Surgically Treated Cervical Cancer with No Residual Disease on Hysterectomy Specimen: A 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) Working Group Study.
Aubrey C; Pond GR; Helpman L; Vicus D; Elit L; Plante M; Lau S; Kwon JS; Altman AD; Willows K; Feigenberg T; Sabourin J; Samouelian V; Bernard L; Cockburn N; Saunders NB; Piedimonte S; Teo-Fortin LA; Kim SR; Sadeq N; Jang JH; Shamiya S; Nelson G
Curr Oncol; 2023 Feb; 30(2):1977-1985. PubMed ID: 36826114
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Minimally invasive radical hysterectomy: an analysis of oncologic outcomes from Hospital Italiano (Argentina).
Odetto D; Puga MC; Saadi J; Noll F; Perrotta M
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2019 Jun; 29(5):863-868. PubMed ID: 31155517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Survival after minimally invasive surgery in early cervical cancer: is the intra-uterine manipulator to blame?
Nica A; Kim SR; Gien LT; Covens A; Bernardini MQ; Bouchard-Fortier G; Kupets R; May T; Vicus D; Laframboise S; Hogen L; Cusimano MC; Ferguson SE
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 Dec; 30(12):1864-1870. PubMed ID: 33037109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Protective effect of pre-operative conization in patients undergoing surgical treatment for early-stage cervical cancer.
Gennari P; Tchaikovski S; Mészáros J; Gerken M; Klinkhammer-Schalke M; Toth G; Ortmann O; Eggemann H; Ignatov A
Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Jul; 166(1):57-60. PubMed ID: 35618539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. How to Select Early-Stage Cervical Cancer Patients Still Suitable for Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy: a Propensity-Matched Study.
Pedone Anchora L; Turco LC; Bizzarri N; Capozzi VA; Lombisani A; Chiantera V; De Felice F; Gallotta V; Cosentino F; Fagotti A; Ferrandina G; Scambia G
Ann Surg Oncol; 2020 Jun; 27(6):1947-1955. PubMed ID: 31898100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Open Versus Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy in Cervical Cancer: The CIRCOL Group Study.
Baiocchi G; Ribeiro R; Dos Reis R; Falcao DF; Lopes A; Costa RLR; Pinto GLS; Vieira M; Kumagai LY; Faloppa CC; Mantoan H; Badiglian-Filho L; Tsunoda AT; Foiato TF; Andrade CEMC; Palmeira LO; Gonçalves BT; Zanvettor PH
Ann Surg Oncol; 2022 Feb; 29(2):1151-1160. PubMed ID: 34545531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Comparison of laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer patients without adjuvant treatment: Ancillary analysis of a Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group Study (KGOG 1028).
Paik ES; Lim MC; Kim MH; Kim YH; Song ES; Seong SJ; Suh DH; Lee JM; Lee C; Choi CH
Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Sep; 154(3):547-553. PubMed ID: 31272738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Effect of the surgical approach on survival outcomes in patients undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A real-world multicenter study of a large Chinese cohort from 2006 to 2017.
Guo C; Tang X; Meng Y; Zhang Y; Zhang X; Guo J; Lei X; Qiu J; Hua K
Cancer Med; 2020 Aug; 9(16):5908-5921. PubMed ID: 32628356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Feasibility and outcome of total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy with no-look no-touch technique for FIGO IB1 cervical cancer.
Kanao H; Matsuo K; Aoki Y; Tanigawa T; Nomura H; Okamoto S; Takeshima N
J Gynecol Oncol; 2019 May; 30(3):e71. PubMed ID: 30887768
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Comparison of laparoscopic and open radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer patients with tumor size ≤2 cm.
Chen X; Zhao N; Ye P; Chen J; Nan X; Zhao H; Zhou K; Zhang Y; Xue J; Zhou H; Shang H; Zhu H; Leanne VM; Yan X
Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 May; 30(5):564-571. PubMed ID: 32276941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. A comparison of stages IB1 and IB2 cervical cancers treated with radical hysterectomy. Is size the real difference?
Rutledge TL; Kamelle SA; Tillmanns TD; Gould NS; Wright JD; Cohn DE; Herzog TJ; Rader JS; Gold MA; Johnson GA; Walker JL; Mannel RS; McMeekin DS
Gynecol Oncol; 2004 Oct; 95(1):70-6. PubMed ID: 15385112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
