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 *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37690596)

  • 1. Practice patterns and complications of hysterectomy for invasive cervical cancer after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial.
    Schivardi G; Casarin J; Habermann EB; Bews KA; Langstraat CL; Cliby W; Cucinella G; De Vitis LA; Ramirez PT; Aletti GD; Mariani A; Multinu F
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Jan; 230(1):69.e1-69.e10. PubMed ID: 37690596
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Approach to radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer after the Laparoscopic Approach to Cervical Cancer trial and associated complications: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program study.
    Levin G; Ramirez PT; Wright JD; Slomovitz BM; Hamilton KM; Schneyer RJ; Barnajian M; Nasseri Y; Siedhoff MT; Wright KN; Meyer R
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2024 Aug; ():. PubMed ID: 39151769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Incidence of adverse events in minimally invasive vs open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial.
    Obermair A; Asher R; Pareja R; Frumovitz M; Lopez A; Moretti-Marques R; Rendon G; Ribeiro R; Tsunoda A; Behan V; Buda A; Bernadini MQ; Zhao H; Vieira M; Walker J; Spirtos NM; Yao S; Chetty N; Zhu T; Isla D; Tamura M; Nicklin J; Robledo KP; Gebski V; Coleman RL; Salvo G; Ramirez PT
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Mar; 222(3):249.e1-249.e10. PubMed ID: 31586602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Uterine weight and complications after abdominal, laparoscopic, and vaginal hysterectomy.
    Louie M; Strassle PD; Moulder JK; Dizon AM; Schiff LD; Carey ET
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Nov; 219(5):480.e1-480.e8. PubMed ID: 29959931
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Decreasing utilization of minimally invasive hysterectomy for cervical cancer in the United States.
    Matsuo K; Mandelbaum RS; Klar M; Ciesielski KM; Matsushima K; Matsuzaki S; Roman LD; Wright JD
    Gynecol Oncol; 2021 Jul; 162(1):43-49. PubMed ID: 33992450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Thirty-day Postoperative Adverse Events in Minimally Invasive versus Open Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Early-stage Cervical Cancer.
    Kohut AY; Kuhn T; Conrad LB; Chua KJ; Abuelafiya M; Gordon AN; Flowers L; Orfanelli T; Blank S; Khanna N
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2022 Jul; 29(7):840-847. PubMed ID: 35405331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Incidence and risk factors for venous thromboembolism events after different routes of pelvic organ prolapse repairs.
    Chong W; Bui AH; Menhaji K
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug; 223(2):268.e1-268.e26. PubMed ID: 32413430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Trainee participation and perioperative complications in benign hysterectomy: the effect of route of surgery.
    Barber EL; Harris B; Gehrig PA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Aug; 215(2):215.e1-7. PubMed ID: 26884272
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. SUCCOR morbidity: complications in minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy in early cervical cancer.
    Vázquez-Vicente D; Boria F; Castellanos T; Gutierrez M; Chacon E; Manzour N; Minguez JA; Martin-Calvo N; Alcazar JL; Chiva L;
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2024 Feb; 34(2):203-208. PubMed ID: 38669163
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The impact of surgeon volume on perioperative adverse events in women undergoing minimally invasive hysterectomy for the large uterus.
    Bretschneider CE; Frazzini Padilla P; Das D; Jelovsek JE; Unger CA
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Nov; 219(5):490.e1-490.e8. PubMed ID: 30222939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Trends in operative time and outcomes in minimally invasive hysterectomy from 2008 to 2018.
    Luchristt D; Brown O; Kenton K; Bretschneider CE
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Feb; 224(2):202.e1-202.e12. PubMed ID: 32791126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Minimally Invasive versus Abdominal Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer.
    Ramirez PT; Frumovitz M; Pareja R; Lopez A; Vieira M; Ribeiro R; Buda A; Yan X; Shuzhong Y; Chetty N; Isla D; Tamura M; Zhu T; Robledo KP; Gebski V; Asher R; Behan V; Nicklin JL; Coleman RL; Obermair A
    N Engl J Med; 2018 Nov; 379(20):1895-1904. PubMed ID: 30380365
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Practice Patterns and Complications of Benign Hysterectomy Following the FDA Statement Warning Against the Use of Power Morcellation.
    Multinu F; Casarin J; Hanson KT; Angioni S; Mariani A; Habermann EB; Laughlin-Tommaso SK
    JAMA Surg; 2018 Jun; 153(6):e180141. PubMed ID: 29641835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Patient, surgeon, and hospital disparities associated with benign hysterectomy approach and perioperative complications.
    Mehta A; Xu T; Hutfless S; Makary MA; Sinno AK; Tanner EJ; Stone RL; Wang K; Fader AN
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 May; 216(5):497.e1-497.e10. PubMed ID: 28034651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Minimally invasive surgery improves short-term outcomes of nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer: a propensity-matched analysis with open abdominal surgery.
    Bogani G; Rossetti D; Ditto A; Martinelli F; Chiappa V; Leone C; Leone Roberti Maggiore U; Lorusso D; Raspagliesi F
    J Gynecol Oncol; 2019 Mar; 30(2):e27. PubMed ID: 30740958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Same-day discharge is feasible and safe in patients undergoing minimally invasive staging for gynecologic malignancies.
    Penner KR; Fleming ND; Barlavi L; Axtell AE; Lentz SE
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Feb; 212(2):186.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25132462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Patterns of recurrence after laparoscopic versus open abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer: a propensity-matched analysis.
    Bogani G; Ghezzi F; Chiva L; Gisone B; Pinelli C; Dell'Acqua A; Casarin J; Ditto A; Raspagliesi F
    Int J Gynecol Cancer; 2020 Jul; 30(7):987-992. PubMed ID: 32448809
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Perioperative morbidity of different operative approaches in early cervical carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing minimally invasive versus open radical hysterectomy.
    Kampers J; Gerhardt E; Sibbertsen P; Flock T; Hertel H; Klapdor R; Jentschke M; Hillemanns P
    Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2022 Aug; 306(2):295-314. PubMed ID: 34625835
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.