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.
117 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35995324)
1. The Effect of Age on Surgical Outcomes Following Uterine Preserving Surgery for Treatment of Apical Prolapse. Chill HH; Shusel O; Dick A; Moss NP; Cohen A; Reuveni-Salzman A; Shveiky D J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2022 Dec; 29(12):1303-1309. PubMed ID: 35995324 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Vaginal Colposuspension Using the Uphold Lite Mesh System versus Transvaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse: A Comparative Study. Chill HH; Navon I; Reuveni-Salzman A; Cohen A; Dick A; Shveiky D J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Oct; 28(10):1759-1764. PubMed ID: 33713835 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. The effect of uterine volume on surgical outcomes following uterine preserving apical prolapse repair. Chill HH; Cohen A; Dick A; Reuveni-Salzman A; Shveiky D Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2023 Feb; 281():49-53. PubMed ID: 36535070 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Absorbable versus Permanent Suture for Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse. Chill HH; Cohen-Milun G; Cohen A; Moss NP; Winer JD; Shveiky D J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2022 Jun; 29(6):784-790. PubMed ID: 35283321 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs. Hemming C; Constable L; Goulao B; Kilonzo M; Boyers D; Elders A; Cooper K; Smith A; Freeman R; Breeman S; McDonald A; Hagen S; Montgomery I; Norrie J; Glazener C Health Technol Assess; 2020 Mar; 24(13):1-220. PubMed ID: 32138809 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Long-term reoperation risk after apical prolapse repair in female pelvic reconstructive surgery. Shah NM; Berger AA; Zhuang Z; Tan-Kim J; Menefee SA Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2022 Aug; 227(2):306.e1-306.e16. PubMed ID: 35654112 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. [Long-term effectiveness of transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension]. Duan L; Lu YX; Shen WJ; Liu X; Liu JX; Zhang YH; Ge J; Zhao Y; Niu K; Wang WY Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2017 Jun; 52(6):363-368. PubMed ID: 28647957 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Racial and ethnic differences in reconstructive surgery for apical vaginal prolapse. Boyd BAJ; Winkelman WD; Mishra K; Vittinghoff E; Jacoby VL Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Oct; 225(4):405.e1-405.e7. PubMed ID: 33984303 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Uterine preservation for advanced pelvic organ prolapse repair: Anatomical results and patient satisfaction. Fink K; Shachar IB; Braun NM Int Braz J Urol; 2016; 42(4):773-8. PubMed ID: 27564289 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Intermediate term outcomes after transvaginal uterine-preserving surgery in women with uterovaginal prolapse. Hickman LC; Tran MC; Paraiso MFR; Walters MD; Ferrando CA Int Urogynecol J; 2022 Jul; 33(7):2005-2012. PubMed ID: 34586437 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Anatomical Outcome and Patient Satisfaction After Laparoscopic Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy for Anterior and Apical Prolapse. Haj Yahya R; Chill HH; Herzberg S; Asfour A; Lesser S; Shveiky D Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018; 24(5):352-355. PubMed ID: 28658003 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With or Without Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Pelvic Organ Vaginal Prolapse on Surgical Outcomes and Prolapse Symptoms at 5 Years in the OPTIMAL Randomized Clinical Trial. Jelovsek JE; Barber MD; Brubaker L; Norton P; Gantz M; Richter HE; Weidner A; Menefee S; Schaffer J; Pugh N; Meikle S; JAMA; 2018 Apr; 319(15):1554-1565. PubMed ID: 29677302 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Meriwether KV; Antosh DD; Olivera CK; Kim-Fine S; Balk EM; Murphy M; Grimes CL; Sleemi A; Singh R; Dieter AA; Crisp CC; Rahn DD Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Aug; 219(2):129-146.e2. PubMed ID: 29353031 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Characteristics associated with composite surgical failure over 5 years of women in a randomized trial of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. Richter HE; Sridhar A; Nager CW; Komesu YM; Harvie HS; Zyczynski HM; Rardin C; Visco A; Mazloomdoost D; Thomas S; Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2023 Jan; 228(1):63.e1-63.e16. PubMed ID: 35931131 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]