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 *

144 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35652948)

  • 1. The modified Manchester Fothergill procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with low uterosacral ligament suspension in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: long-term outcome.
    Enklaar RA; Knapen FMFM; Schulten SFM; van Osch LADM; van Leijsen SAL; Gondrie ETCM; Weemhoff M
    Int Urogynecol J; 2023 Jan; 34(1):155-164. PubMed ID: 35652948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study.
    Tolstrup CK; Husby KR; Lose G; Kopp TI; Viborg PH; Kesmodel US; Klarskov N
    Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Mar; 29(3):431-440. PubMed ID: 29288346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. High Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension for Post-Hysterectomy Vaginal Vault Prolapse Repair.
    Barba M; Cola A; Melocchi T; De Vicari D; Costa C; Volontè S; Sandullo L; Frigerio M
    Medicina (Kaunas); 2024 Feb; 60(2):. PubMed ID: 38399607
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy vs Total Vaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Anterior and Apical Prolapse: Surgical Outcome and Patient Satisfaction.
    Haj-Yahya R; Chill HH; Levin G; Reuveni-Salzman A; Shveiky D
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020 Jan; 27(1):88-93. PubMed ID: 30802607
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis.
    Husby KR; Tolstrup CK; Lose G; Klarskov N
    Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Aug; 29(8):1161-1171. PubMed ID: 29480429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A commentary on "The modified Manchester Fothergill procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with low uterosacral ligament suspension in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: long term outcome".
    Chill HH
    Int Urogynecol J; 2023 Jan; 34(1):165. PubMed ID: 35657396
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [Effectiveness of vaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse].
    Shen WJ; Lu YX; Liu X; Liu JX; Duan L; Zhang YH; Niu K; Wang WY; Qin L; Zhang XL
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2019 Apr; 54(4):232-238. PubMed ID: 31006188
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication.
    de Boer TA; Milani AL; Kluivers KB; Withagen MI; Vierhout ME
    Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct; 2009 Nov; 20(11):1313-9. PubMed ID: 19669686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [UTEROSACRAL VERSUS SACROSPINOUS LIGAMENT FIXATION FOLLOWING VAGINAL HYSTERECTOMY FOR THE TREATMENT OF ADVANCED PELVIC ORGAN PROLAPSE].
    Nasser-Saman D; Yonis G; Haya N; Lavie O; Abramov Y
    Harefuah; 2022 Jun; 161(6):342-348. PubMed ID: 35734789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Uterus preserving vaginal surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy for correction of female pelvic organ prolapse.
    Iliev VN; Andonova IT
    Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki); 2014; 35(1):243-7. PubMed ID: 24802202
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Minimally Invasive Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.
    Hwang WY; Jeon MJ; Suh DH
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2024 May; 31(5):406-413. PubMed ID: 38336010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of two natural tissue repair-based surgical techniques; sacrospinous fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse treatment.
    Topdagi Yilmaz EP; Yapca OE; Topdagi YE; Atakan Al R; Kumtepe Y
    J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2021 Apr; 50(4):101905. PubMed ID: 32916370
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. [Long-term outcomes of the high vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension in treatment of the severe pelvic organ prolapse].
    Lu YX; Wang J; Shen WJ; Zhang YH; Liu JX; Zhao Y; Ge J; Niu K; Wang WY
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2013 Aug; 48(8):564-9. PubMed ID: 24199919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent.
    Thys SD; Coolen A; Martens IR; Oosterbaan HP; Roovers J; Mol B; Bongers MY
    Int Urogynecol J; 2011 Sep; 22(9):1171-8. PubMed ID: 21484366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Infected pelvic hematoma following vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical prolapse.
    Chill HH; Ben Porat L; Winer J; Moss NP; Cohen A; Shveiky D
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2022 Apr; 271():97-101. PubMed ID: 35180514
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Back to the future: vaginal hysterectomy and Campbell uterosacral ligaments suspension for urogenital prolapse.
    Pettenati C; Cour F; Bosset PO; Kennel T; Vidart A; Lebret T
    Int Urogynecol J; 2021 Jun; 32(6):1579-1587. PubMed ID: 33620535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Nager CW; Visco AG; Richter HE; Rardin CR; Rogers RG; Harvie HS; Zyczynski HM; Paraiso MFR; Mazloomdoost D; Grey S; Sridhar A; Wallace D;
    JAMA; 2019 Sep; 322(11):1054-1065. PubMed ID: 31529008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. [Comparison outcomes of three surgical procedures in treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse and analysis of risk factors for genital prolapse recurrence].
    Hu CD; Chen YS; Yi XF; Ding JX; Feng WW; Yao LQ; Huang J; Zhang Y; Hu WG; Zhu ZL; Hua KQ
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2011 Feb; 46(2):94-100. PubMed ID: 21426765
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. 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]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.