131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38336010)
1. 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]
2. Vaginal versus robotic hysterectomy and concomitant pelvic support surgery: a comparison of postoperative vaginal length and sexual function.
De La Cruz JF; Myers EM; Geller EJ
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2014; 21(6):1010-4. PubMed ID: 24780383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. National Analysis of Perioperative Morbidity of Vaginal Versus Laparoscopic Hysterectomy at the Time of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension.
Chapman GC; Slopnick EA; Roberts K; Sheyn D; Wherley S; Mahajan ST; Pollard RR
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Feb; 28(2):275-281. PubMed ID: 32450226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.
Houlihan S; Kim-Fine S; Birch C; Tang S; Brennand EA
Int Urogynecol J; 2019 Apr; 30(4):611-621. PubMed ID: 30393822
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site compared with robotic multi-port sacrocolpopexy for apical compartment prolapse.
Matanes E; Boulus S; Lauterbach R; Amit A; Weiner Z; Lowenstein L
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Apr; 222(4):358.e1-358.e11. PubMed ID: 31589864
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.
Detollenaere RJ; den Boon J; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Vierhout ME; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HW
BMJ; 2015 Jul; 351():h3717. PubMed ID: 26206451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Laparoscopic Versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Women With Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature.
Douligeris A; Kathopoulis N; Zachariou E; Mortaki A; Zacharakis D; Kypriotis K; Chatzipapas I; Protopapas A
J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2024 Jun; 31(6):477-487. PubMed ID: 38493827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
Schulten SFM; Detollenaere RJ; Stekelenburg J; IntHout J; Kluivers KB; van Eijndhoven HWF
BMJ; 2019 Sep; 366():l5149. PubMed ID: 31506252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial.
Nager CW; Visco AG; Richter HE; Rardin CR; Komesu Y; Harvie HS; Zyczynski HM; Paraiso MFR; Mazloomdoost D; Sridhar A; Thomas S;
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2021 Aug; 225(2):153.e1-153.e31. PubMed ID: 33716071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus conventional surgery for uterosacral ligament suspension in patients who had concomitant vaginal hysterectomy for subtotal uterine prolapse.
Ekin M; Dura MC; Yildiz S; Gürsoy B; Yildiz YY; Dogan K; Kaya C
Asian J Endosc Surg; 2024 Jul; 17(3):e13333. PubMed ID: 38839273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Comparative Perioperative Pain and Recovery in Women Undergoing Vaginal Reconstruction Versus Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.
Westermann LB; Crisp CC; Mazloomdoost D; Kleeman SD; Pauls RN
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2017; 23(2):95-100. PubMed ID: 28067743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse.
Turner LC; Lavelle ES; Shepherd JP
Int Urogynecol J; 2016 May; 27(5):797-803. PubMed ID: 26658893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse using validated questionnaires: 2-year prospective study.
Lone F; Curnow T; Thomas SA
Int Urogynecol J; 2018 Jan; 29(1):71-79. PubMed ID: 28687905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
