260 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35061066)
1. A meta-analysis of survival after minimally invasive radical hysterectomy versus abdominal radical hysterectomy in cervical cancer: center-associated factors matter.
Sun S; Cai J; Li R; Wang Y; Zhao J; Huang Y; Xu L; Yang Q; Wang Z
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Sep; 306(3):623-637. PubMed ID: 35061066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The MEMORY Study: MulticentEr study of Minimally invasive surgery versus Open Radical hYsterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.
Leitao MM; Zhou QC; Brandt B; Iasonos A; Sioulas V; Lavigne Mager K; Shahin M; Bruce S; Black DR; Kay CG; Gandhi M; Qayyum M; Scalici J; Jones NL; Paladugu R; Brown J; Naumann RW; Levine MD; Mendivil A; Lim PC; Kang E; Cantrell LA; Sullivan MW; Martino MA; Kratz MK; Kolev V; Tomita S; Leath CA; Boitano TKL; Doo DW; Feltmate C; Sugrue R; Olawaiye AB; Goldfeld E; Ferguson SE; Suhner J; Abu-Rustum NR
Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Sep; 166(3):417-424. PubMed ID: 35879128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Minimally Invasive Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Smith AJB; Jones TN; Miao D; Fader AN
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Mar; 28(3):544-555.e7. PubMed ID: 33359291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Patterns of recurrence in FIGO stage IB1-IB2 cervical cancer: Comparison between minimally invasive and abdominal radical hysterectomy.
Corrado G; Anchora LP; Bruni S; Sperduti I; Certelli C; Chiofalo B; Giannini A; D'Oria O; Bizzarri N; Legge F; Cosentino F; Turco LC; Vizza E; Scambia G; Ferrandina G
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2023 Nov; 49(11):107047. PubMed ID: 37862783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Laparo-assisted vaginal radical hysterectomy as a safe option for Minimal Invasive Surgery in early stage cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ronsini C; Köhler C; De Franciscis P; La Verde M; Mosca L; Solazzo MC; Colacurci N
Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Jul; 166(1):188-195. PubMed ID: 35513934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison between robot-assisted radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: A multicentre retrospective study.
Chen B; Ji M; Li P; Liu P; Zou W; Zhao Z; Qu B; Li Z; Bin X; Lang J; Wang H; Chen C
Gynecol Oncol; 2020 May; 157(2):429-436. PubMed ID: 32067814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of Survival Outcomes after Laparoscopic Radical Hysterectomy versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy in Patients with Cervical Cancer.
Hwang JH; Kim BW
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 May; 28(5):971-981.e3. PubMed ID: 33321255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Safety and efficacy study of laparoscopic or robotic radical surgery using an endoscopic stapler for inhibiting tumour spillage of cervical malignant neoplasms evaluating survival (SOLUTION): a multi-centre, open-label, single-arm, phase II trial protocol.
Park SJ; Kong TW; Kim T; Lee M; Choi CH; Shim SH; Yim GW; Lee S; Lee EJ; Lim MC; Chang SJ; Lee SJ; Lee SH; Song T; Lee YY; Kim HS; Nam EJ
BMC Cancer; 2022 Mar; 22(1):331. PubMed ID: 35346103
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Minimally invasive surgery and abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: A meta-analysis.
Yu Y; Deng T; Gu S
Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2022 May; 157(2):255-264. PubMed ID: 34165795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Outcomes of Minimally Invasive versus Open Radical Hysterectomy for Early Stage Cervical Cancer Incorporating 2018 FIGO Staging.
Levine MD; Brown J; Crane EK; Tait DL; Naumann RW
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Apr; 28(4):824-828. PubMed ID: 32730990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Comparison of oncological outcomes and major complications between laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy for stage IB1 cervical cancer with a tumour size less than 2 cm.
Li Z; Chen C; Liu P; Duan H; Liu M; Xu Y; Li P; Zhang W; Jiang H; Bin X; Lang J
Eur J Surg Oncol; 2021 Aug; 47(8):2125-2133. PubMed ID: 33781626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative outcomes between robotic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for IB1 cervical cancer: Results from a single high volume institution.
Doo DW; Kirkland CT; Griswold LH; McGwin G; Huh WK; Leath CA; Kim KH
Gynecol Oncol; 2019 May; 153(2):242-247. PubMed ID: 30850169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Comparison of Prognosis between Minimally Invasive and Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Patients with Early-Stage Cervical Cancer.
Tanaka T; Ueda S; Miyamoto S; Hashida S; Terada S; Konishi H; Kogata Y; Taniguchi K; Komura K; Ohmichi M
Curr Oncol; 2022 Mar; 29(4):2272-2283. PubMed ID: 35448159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of outcomes between abdominal, minimally invasive and combined vaginal-laparoscopic hysterectomy in patients with stage IAI/IA2 cervical cancer: 4C (Canadian Cervical Cancer Collaborative) study.
Piedimonte S; Pond GR; Plante M; Nelson G; Kwon J; Altman A; Feigenberg T; Elit L; Lau S; Sabourin J; Willows K; Aubrey C; Jang JH; Teo-Fortin LA; Cockburn N; Saunders NB; Shamiya S; Helpman L; Vicus D;
Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Aug; 166(2):230-235. PubMed ID: 35644731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of survival outcomes between minimally invasive surgery and conventional open surgery for radical hysterectomy as primary treatment in patients with stage IB1-IIA2 cervical cancer.
Kim SI; Cho JH; Seol A; Kim YI; Lee M; Kim HS; Chung HH; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS
Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Apr; 153(1):3-12. PubMed ID: 30642625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Open versus minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for early cervical cancer: A two-center retrospective cohort study with pathologic review of usual-type adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma.
Kim Y; Kim SI; Kim H; Lee M; Kim HS; Kim K; Chung HH; No JH; Kim YB; Kim JW; Park NH; Song YS; Lee C; Suh DH
Gynecol Oncol; 2022 Oct; 167(1):28-36. PubMed ID: 35970602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
