189 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37955717)
1. Advanced bipolar vessel sealing devices vs conventional bipolar energy in minimally invasive hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zorzato PC; Ferrari FA; Garzon S; Franchi M; Cianci S; Laganà AS; Chiantera V; Casarin J; Ghezzi F; Uccella S
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2024 Apr; 309(4):1165-1174. PubMed ID: 37955717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of Industry-Leading Energy Devices for Use in Gynecologic Laparoscopy: Articulating ENSEAL versus LigaSure Energy Devices.
Shiber LJ; Ginn DN; Jan A; Gaskins JT; Biscette SM; Pasic R
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018; 25(3):467-473.e1. PubMed ID: 29032252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Perioperative outcomes of bipolar energy instruments in total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Yalcin Y; Yalcin SE
Ginekol Pol; 2019; 90(11):640-644. PubMed ID: 31802464
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using pulsed bipolar system: comparison with conventional bipolar electrosurgery.
Lee CL; Huang KG; Wang CJ; Lee PS; Hwang LL
Gynecol Oncol; 2007 Jun; 105(3):620-4. PubMed ID: 17303226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy using electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing technique: a randomized controlled trial.
Allam IS; Makled AK; Gomaa IA; El Bishry GM; Bayoumy HA; Ali DF
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2015 Jun; 291(6):1341-5. PubMed ID: 25524534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Outcomes of conventional and advanced energy devices in laparoscopic surgery: a systematic review.
Abi Antoun M; Etrusco A; Chiantera V; Laganà AS; Feghali E; Khazzaka A; Stabile G; Della Corte L; Dellino M; Sleiman Z
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol; 2024 Feb; 33(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 38164811
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Energy sources for laparoscopic colectomy: a prospective randomized comparison of conventional electrosurgery, bipolar computer-controlled electrosurgery and ultrasonic dissection. Operative outcome and costs analysis.
Targarona EM; Balague C; Marin J; Neto RB; Martinez C; Garriga J; Trias M
Surg Innov; 2005 Dec; 12(4):339-44. PubMed ID: 16424955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing energy devices used in colorectal surgery.
Charalambides M; Afxentiou T; Pellino G; Powar MP; Fearnhead NS; Davies RJ; Wheeler J; Simillis C
Tech Coloproctol; 2022 Jun; 26(6):413-423. PubMed ID: 35132505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Perioperative Interventions to Minimize Blood Loss at the Time of Hysterectomy for Uterine Leiomyomas: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Gingold JA; Chichura A; Harnegie MP; Kho RM
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019; 26(7):1234-1252.e1. PubMed ID: 31039407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of two bipolar systems in laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Cho HY; Choi KJ; Lee YL; Chang KH; Kim HB; Park SH
JSLS; 2012; 16(3):456-60. PubMed ID: 23318073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative Analysis of Peri-Operative Outcomes Following Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with Conventional Bipolar-Electrosurgery versus High-Pressure Pulsed LigaSure Use.
Batra S; Bhardwaj P; Dagar M
Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther; 2022; 11(2):105-109. PubMed ID: 35746909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Bipolar vessel-sealing devices in laparoscopic hysterectomies: a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial.
Hasanov M; Denschlag D; Seemann E; Gitsch G; Woll J; Klar M
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2018 Feb; 297(2):409-414. PubMed ID: 29222641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of surgical outcomes using Gyrus PKS™ vs LigaSure™ in total laparoscopic hysterectomy: A randomised controlled trial.
Wong C; Goh A; Merkur H
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol; 2020 Oct; 60(5):790-796. PubMed ID: 32729141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Use of plasmakinetics vessel sealing vs suture material in abdominal total hysterectomy].
Briones Landa CH; Zepeda Zaragoza J; Dupré Aramburu G; Cruz Islas ML
Ginecol Obstet Mex; 2009 Dec; 77(12):556-61. PubMed ID: 20077879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Surgical outcomes of total laparoscopic hysterectomy with 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional laparoscopic surgical systems.
Yazawa H; Takiguchi K; Imaizumi K; Wada M; Ito F
Fukushima J Med Sci; 2018 Apr; 64(1):38-45. PubMed ID: 29540624
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of two advanced vessel sealing technologies in total laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Aykan Yuksel B; Karadag B; Mulayim B
J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2019 Nov; 45(11):2220-2227. PubMed ID: 31423703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of the efficacy of the pulsed bipolar system and conventional bipolar electrosurgery in laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy.
Wang CJ; Yuen LT; Yen CF; Lee CL; Soong YK
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2005 Aug; 15(4):361-4. PubMed ID: 16108737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Safety and efficacy of using advanced electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing during vaginal hysterectomy in morbidly obese patients: a retrospective cohort analysis.
Karacan T; Ozyurek E; Wetherilt LS; Kiyak H; Yilmaz S; Kaya E
Ginekol Pol; 2017; 88(10):523-529. PubMed ID: 29192412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional clamping and suturing for total abdominal hysterectomy: a randomized trial.
Lakeman M; Kruitwagen RF; Vos MC; Roovers JP
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2008; 15(5):547-53. PubMed ID: 18619923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing versus conventional clamping and suturing for vaginal hysterectomy: a randomised controlled trial.
Lakeman MM; The S; Schellart RP; Dietz V; ter Haar JF; Thurkow A; Scholten PC; Dijkgraaf MG; Roovers JP
BJOG; 2012 Nov; 119(12):1473-82. PubMed ID: 22925365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
