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 *

191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37127211)

  • 1. Impact of purse-string uterine suture on scar healing after a cesarean delivery: a randomized controlled trial.
    Halouani A; Dimassi K; Ben Mansour A; Triki A
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2023 Jul; 5(7):100992. PubMed ID: 37127211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Barbed vs conventional sutures for cesarean uterine scar defects: a randomized clinical trial.
    Maki J; Mitoma T; Ooba H; Nakato H; Mishima S; Tani K; Eto E; Yamamoto D; Yamamoto R; Kai K; Tamada T; Akamatsu K; Kawanishi K; Masuyama H
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2024 Sep; 6(9):101431. PubMed ID: 39019212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Incomplete healing of the uterine incision after elective second cesarean section.
    Tekelioğlu M; Karataş S; Güralp O; Murat Alınca C; Ender Yumru A; Tuğ N
    J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med; 2021 Mar; 34(6):943-947. PubMed ID: 31146610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Impact of uterine closure on residual myometrial thickness after cesarean: a randomized controlled trial.
    Roberge S; Demers S; Girard M; Vikhareva O; Markey S; Chaillet N; Moore L; Paris G; Bujold E
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Apr; 214(4):507.e1-507.e6. PubMed ID: 26522861
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A new technique for uterine incision closure at the time of cesarean section: does it make a difference?
    Elkhouly NI; Abdelaal NK; Solyman AE; Elkelani OA; Elbasueny BF; Elhalaby AF
    J Obstet Gynaecol; 2022 Apr; 42(3):416-423. PubMed ID: 34155957
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Evaluation of cesarean scar after single- and double-layer hysterotomy closure: a prospective cross-sectional study.
    Tekiner NB; Çetin BA; Türkgeldi LS; Yılmaz G; Polat İ; Gedikbaşı A
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2018 May; 297(5):1137-1143. PubMed ID: 29397441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Double-layered purse string uterine suture compared with single-layer continuous uterine suture: A randomized Controlled trial.
    Dimassi K; Ami O; Merai R; Velemir L; Simon B; Fauck D; Triki A
    J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2022 Feb; 51(2):102282. PubMed ID: 34933146
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Hydrosonographic Assessment of the Effect of Two Different Suture Materials on Healing of the Uterine Scar after Cesarean Delivery: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Sevket O; Takmaz T; Ozcan P; Halici BNA; Islek SH
    Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol; 2021 Apr; 225(2):140-145. PubMed ID: 32588418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Hydrosonographic assessment of the effects of 2 different suturing techniques on healing of the uterine scar after cesarean delivery.
    Sevket O; Ates S; Molla T; Ozkal F; Uysal O; Dansuk R
    Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2014 Jun; 125(3):219-22. PubMed ID: 24680843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Risk of Cesarean scar defect following single- vs double-layer uterine closure: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A; Saccone G; McCurdy R; Bujold E; Bifulco G; Berghella V
    Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Nov; 50(5):578-583. PubMed ID: 28070914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Monofilament vs multifilament suture for uterine closure at the time of cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial.
    Saccone G; De Angelis MC; Zizolfi B; Gragnano E; Musone M; Zullo F; Bifulco G; Di Spiezio Sardo A
    Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM; 2022 May; 4(3):100592. PubMed ID: 35131497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Purse-string suture vs second intention healing: results of a randomized, blind clinical trial.
    Joo J; Custis T; Armstrong AW; King TH; Omlin K; Kappel ST; Eisen DB
    JAMA Dermatol; 2015 Mar; 151(3):265-70. PubMed ID: 25372450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Does Suture Material Affect Uterine Scar Healing After Cesarean Section? Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Başbuğ A; Doğan O; Ellibeş Kaya A; Pulatoğlu Ç; Çağlar M
    J Invest Surg; 2019 Dec; 32(8):763-769. PubMed ID: 29667541
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Ultrasound cesarean scar assessment one year postpartum in relation to one- or two-layer uterine suture closure.
    Hanacek J; Vojtech J; Urbankova I; Krcmar M; Křepelka P; Feyereisl J; Krofta L
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2020 Jan; 99(1):69-78. PubMed ID: 31441500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Longitudinal transvaginal ultrasound evaluation of cesarean scar niche incidence and depth in the first two years after single- or double-layer uterotomy closure: a randomized controlled trial.
    Bamberg C; Hinkson L; Dudenhausen JW; Bujak V; Kalache KD; Henrich W
    Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand; 2017 Dec; 96(12):1484-1489. PubMed ID: 28832909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Purse-string double-layer closure: a novel technique for repairing the uterine incision during cesarean section.
    Turan C; Büyükbayrak EE; Yilmaz AO; Karsidag YK; Pirimoglu M
    J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2015 Apr; 41(4):565-74. PubMed ID: 25370526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Single- versus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development - the 2Close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
    Stegwee SI; Jordans IPM; van der Voet LF; Bongers MY; de Groot CJM; Lambalk CB; de Leeuw RA; Hehenkamp WJK; van de Ven PM; Bosmans JE; Pajkrt E; Bakkum EA; Radder CM; Hemelaar M; van Baal WM; Visser H; van Laar JOEH; van Vliet HAAM; Rijnders RJP; Sueters M; Janssen CAH; Hermes W; Feitsma AH; Kapiteijn K; Scheepers HCJ; Langenveld J; de Boer K; Coppus SFPJ; Schippers DH; Oei ALM; Kaplan M; Papatsonis DNM; de Vleeschouwer LHM; van Beek E; Bekker MN; Huisjes AJM; Meijer WJ; Deurloo KL; Boormans EMA; van Eijndhoven HWF; Huirne JAF
    BMC Pregnancy Childbirth; 2019 Mar; 19(1):85. PubMed ID: 30832681
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impact of selected risk factors on uterine healing after cesarean section in women with single-layer uterine closure: A prospective study using two- and three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography.
    Budny-Wińska J; Zimmer-Stelmach A; Pomorski M
    Adv Clin Exp Med; 2022 Jan; 31(1):41-48. PubMed ID: 34738347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Single vs. Double Layer Closure of Hysterotomy at the Time of Cesarean Delivery: The Effect on Uterine Scar Thickness.
    Bamberg C; Dudenhausen JW; Bujak V; Rodekamp E; Brauer M; Hinkson L; Kalache K; Henrich W
    Ultraschall Med; 2018 Jun; 39(3):343-351. PubMed ID: 27626240
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Impact of single- vs double-layer closure on adverse outcomes and uterine scar defect: a systematic review and metaanalysis.
    Roberge S; Demers S; Berghella V; Chaillet N; Moore L; Bujold E
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2014 Nov; 211(5):453-60. PubMed ID: 24912096
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.