These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35482083)

  • 1. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy as treatment for uterine descent: comparison of long-term outcomes.
    van Oudheusden AMJ; Coolen AWM; Hoskam H; Veen J; Bongers MY
    Int Urogynecol J; 2023 Jan; 34(1):211-223. PubMed ID: 35482083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy-a multicentre randomised controlled trial (LAVA trial).
    van IJsselmuiden MN; van Oudheusden A; Veen J; van de Pol G; Vollebregt A; Radder CM; Housmans S; van Kuijk S; Deprest J; Bongers MY; van Eijndhoven H
    BJOG; 2020 Sep; 127(10):1284-1293. PubMed ID: 32267624
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial, study protocol).
    van IJsselmuiden MN; Coolen AL; Detollenaere RJ; den Boon J; Bongers M; van de Pol G; Vollebregt A; Radder CM; Deprest J; van Eijndhoven HW
    BMC Womens Health; 2014 Sep; 14():112. PubMed ID: 25231240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
    Schulten SFM; Detollenaere RJ; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HWF
    BMJ; 2019 Sep; 366():l5149. PubMed ID: 31506252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ mobility after treatment for uterine descent: differences between surgical procedures.
    van IJsselmuiden MN; Lecomte-Grosbras P; Witz JF; Brieu M; Cosson M; van Eijndhoven HWF
    Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Oct; 31(10):2119-2127. PubMed ID: 32277268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse.
    Chen Y; Hua K
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2017 May; 137(2):164-169. PubMed ID: 28099748
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women.
    Geoffrion R; Larouche M
    J Obstet Gynaecol Can; 2021 Apr; 43(4):511-523.e1. PubMed ID: 33548503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Outcomes of the Manchester Procedure Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Hysteropexy for Uterine Prolapse: A Study of the British Society of Urogynaecology Database.
    Tan ACC; Latthe P
    Int Urogynecol J; 2024 Jul; 35(7):1469-1475. PubMed ID: 38847822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.
    Schulten SF; Detollenaere RJ; IntHout J; Kluivers KB; Van Eijndhoven HW
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Aug; 227(2):252.e1-252.e9. PubMed ID: 35439530
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
    Izett-Kay ML; Rahmanou P; Cartwright RJ; Price N; Jackson SR
    Int Urogynecol J; 2022 Jul; 33(7):1957-1965. PubMed ID: 34424347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Laparoscopic Cerclage Sacrohysteropexy: Comparing a Novel Technique for Sacrohysteropexy to Traditional Supracervical Hysterectomy and Sacrocervicopexy.
    Armstrong KL; Modest AM; Rosenblatt PL
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2021 Feb; 27(2):e315-e320. PubMed ID: 32675629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.
    Detollenaere RJ; den Boon J; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Vierhout ME; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HW
    BMJ; 2015 Jul; 351():h3717. PubMed ID: 26206451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Recurrent surgery in uterine prolapse: A nationwide register study.
    Brunes M; Johannesson U; Drca A; Bergman I; Söderberg M; Warnqvist A; Ek M
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2022 May; 101(5):532-541. PubMed ID: 35257371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Impact of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy and Vaginal Hysterectomy With Suspension of the Uterosacral Ligaments on Sexual Function in Women With Uterine Prolapse: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Comparative Study.
    Detollenaere RJ; Kreuwel IA; Dijkstra JR; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HW
    J Sex Med; 2016 Feb; 13(2):213-9. PubMed ID: 26805940
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Enklaar RA; Schulten SFM; van Eijndhoven HWF; Weemhoff M; van Leijsen SAL; van der Weide MC; van Bavel J; Verkleij-Hagoort AC; Adang EMM; Kluivers KB;
    JAMA; 2023 Aug; 330(7):626-635. PubMed ID: 37581670
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Long term outcomes of laparoscopic sacro/colpo-hysteropexy with and without rectopexy for the treatment of prolapse.
    Grinstein E; Abdelkhalek Y; Veit-Rubin N; Gluck O; Deval B
    Int Urogynecol J; 2022 Feb; 33(2):343-350. PubMed ID: 34125240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).
    Schulten SFM; Enklaar RA; Kluivers KB; van Leijsen SAL; Jansen-van der Weide MC; Adang EMM; van Bavel J; van Dongen H; Gerritse MBE; van Gestel I; Malmberg GGA; Mouw RJC; van Rumpt-van de Geest DA; Spaans WA; van der Steen A; Stekelenburg J; Tiersma ESM; Verkleij-Hagoort AC; Vollebregt A; Wingen CBM; Weemhoff M; van Eijndhoven HWF
    BMC Womens Health; 2019 Apr; 19(1):49. PubMed ID: 30940171
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Subjective Long-Term Outcomes After Vaginal Native Tissue Hysteropexy: Cohort Study.
    Lange S; Carlin G; Zängle R; Heinzl F; Umek W; Bodner-Adler B
    Urogynecology (Phila); 2024 Aug; 30(8):714-720. PubMed ID: 38289022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study.
    Gutman RE; Rardin CR; Sokol ER; Matthews C; Park AJ; Iglesia CB; Geoffrion R; Sokol AI; Karram M; Cundiff GW; Blomquist JL; Barber MD
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jan; 216(1):38.e1-38.e11. PubMed ID: 27596620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial.
    Nager CW; Visco AG; Richter HE; Rardin CR; Komesu Y; Harvie HS; Zyczynski HM; Paraiso MFR; Mazloomdoost D; Sridhar A; Thomas S;
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Aug; 225(2):153.e1-153.e31. PubMed ID: 33716071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.