199 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35319076)
1. Survival after minimally invasive vs. open radical nephrectomy for stage I and II renal cell carcinoma.
Dursun F; Elshabrawy A; Wang H; Rodriguez R; Liss MA; Kaushik D; Gelfond J; Mansour AM
Int J Clin Oncol; 2022 Jun; 27(6):1068-1076. PubMed ID: 35319076
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Robotic partial nephrectomy vs minimally invasive radical nephrectomy for clinical T2a renal mass: a propensity score-matched comparison from the ROSULA (Robotic Surgery for Large Renal Mass) Collaborative Group.
Bradshaw AW; Autorino R; Simone G; Yang B; Uzzo RG; Porpiglia F; Capitanio U; Porter J; Bertolo R; Minervini A; Lau C; Jacobsohn K; Ashrafi A; Eun D; Mottrie A; White WM; Schips L; Challacombe BJ; De Cobelli O; Mir CM; Veccia A; Larcher A; Kutikov A; Aron M; Dasgupta P; Montorsi F; Gill IS; Sundaram CP; Kaouk J; Derweesh IH
BJU Int; 2020 Jul; 126(1):114-123. PubMed ID: 32232920
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Costs analysis of laparoendoscopic, single-site laparoscopic and open surgery for cT1 renal masses in a European high-volume centre.
Pini G; Ascalone L; Greco F; Mohammed N; Fornara P
World J Urol; 2014 Dec; 32(6):1501-10. PubMed ID: 24346843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Oncological outcomes of minimally invasive partial versus minimally invasive radical nephrectomy for cT1-2/N0/M0 clear cell renal cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Simone G; Tuderti G; Anceschi U; Papalia R; Ferriero M; Misuraca L; Minisola F; Mastroianni R; Costantini M; Guaglianone S; Sentinelli S; Gallucci M
World J Urol; 2017 May; 35(5):789-794. PubMed ID: 27578234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does size matter? Comparing robotic versus open radical nephrectomy for very large renal masses.
Pahouja G; Sweigert SE; Sweigert PJ; Gorbonos A; Patel HD; Gupta GN
Urol Oncol; 2022 Oct; 40(10):456.e1-456.e7. PubMed ID: 35667982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Long-term oncologic outcomes of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional comparative study.
Park YH; Lee ES; Kim HH; Kwak C; Ku JH; Lee SE; Byun SS; Hong SK; Kim YJ; Kang SH; Hong SH
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2014 Aug; 24(8):556-62. PubMed ID: 25007232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Comparison of Perioperative Outcomes for Radical Nephrectomy Based on Surgical Approach for Masses Greater Than 10 cm.
Grimaud LW; Chen FV; Chang J; Ziogas A; Sfakianos JP; Badani KK; Uchio EM; Anton-Culver H; Gin GE
J Endourol; 2021 Dec; 35(12):1785-1792. PubMed ID: 34148404
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Minimally invasive surgery versus laparotomy for radical hysterectomy in the management of early-stage cervical cancer: Survival outcomes.
Brandt B; Sioulas V; Basaran D; Kuhn T; LaVigne K; Gardner GJ; Sonoda Y; Chi DS; Long Roche KC; Mueller JJ; Jewell EL; Broach VA; Zivanovic O; Abu-Rustum NR; Leitao MM
Gynecol Oncol; 2020 Mar; 156(3):591-597. PubMed ID: 31918996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Analysis of long-term survival in patients with localized renal cell carcinoma: laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy.
Luo JH; Zhou FJ; Xie D; Zhang ZL; Liao B; Zhao HW; Dai YP; Chen LW; Chen W
World J Urol; 2010 Jun; 28(3):289-93. PubMed ID: 19916010
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Comparison of hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy with open radical nephrectomy for pT1-2 clear cell renal-cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional study.
Park YH; Byun SS; Kang SH; Koh JS; Park HK; Paick SH; Seo YJ; Yoo TG; Jung H; Cho JS; Jeon SS; Choi Y; Park SK
J Endourol; 2009 Sep; 23(9):1485-9. PubMed ID: 19698036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. [Effect of surgical approach on radical nephrectomy outcomes: Comparative study between open and laparoscopic nephrectomy.].
Barbas-Bernardos G; Herranz-Amo F; Caño-Velasco J; Gonzalo-Balbás Á; Subirá-Ríos D; Moralejo-Gárate M; Mayor-de Castro J; Escribano-Patiño G; Rodríguez-Fernández E; Aragón-Chamizo J; Hernández Fernández C
Arch Esp Urol; 2020 Apr; 73(3):172-182. PubMed ID: 32240107
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparative analysis of surgical and oncologic outcomes of robotic, laparoscopic and open radical nephrectomy with venous thrombectomy: a propensity-matched cohort study.
Zhang Y; Bi H; Yan Y; Liu Z; Wang G; Song Y; Zhang S; Liu C; Ma L
Int J Clin Oncol; 2023 Jan; 28(1):145-154. PubMed ID: 36380158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Conversion to Open Radical or Partial Nephrectomy Associated with Unplanned Hospital Readmission After Attempted Minimally Invasive Approach.
Razdan S; Okhawere K; Wilson M; Nkemdirim W; Korn T; Meilika K; Badani K
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2022 Aug; 32(8):823-831. PubMed ID: 34962141
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Regional trends of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer and exploration of perioperative outcomes.
Holtzman S; Chaoul J; Finkelstein M; Kolev V; Zakashansky K
Cancer Epidemiol; 2022 Apr; 77():102095. PubMed ID: 35078009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Impact of surgical approach on oncologic outcomes in women undergoing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.
Cusimano MC; Baxter NN; Gien LT; Moineddin R; Liu N; Dossa F; Willows K; Ferguson SE
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Dec; 221(6):619.e1-619.e24. PubMed ID: 31288006
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
