34 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 38651645)
1. Ease of removal of malpositioned intrauterine devices: A retrospective cohort study.
Frisse AC; Louik JB; Kachwala IA; Wu H; Felix N; Vorawandthanachai T; Avila K; Benfield NC
Contraception; 2024 Jun; ():110504. PubMed ID: 38848813
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Point-of-care ultrasound for the evaluation of venous cannula position in neonatal extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.
Pawlowski TW; Stoller JZ; Rintoul NE; Hedrick HL; Quartermain MD; Fraga MV
J Perinatol; 2021 Jul; 41(7):1645-1650. PubMed ID: 33795791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Does the type of intrauterine device affect conspicuity on 2D and 3D ultrasound?
Moschos E; Twickler DM
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Jun; 196(6):1439-43. PubMed ID: 21606311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Uterine structural abnormality and intrauterine device malposition: analysis of ultrasonographic and demographic variables of 517 patients.
Gerkowicz SA; Fiorentino DG; Kovacs AP; Arheart KL; Verma U
Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2019 Feb; 220(2):183.e1-183.e8. PubMed ID: 30419198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Uterine dimensions and intrauterine device malposition: can ultrasound predict displacement or expulsion before it happens?
Çintesun FNİ; Çintesun E; Esenkaya Ü; Günenc O
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2020 Nov; 302(5):1181-1187. PubMed ID: 32748051
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Menstrual characteristics and ultrasonographic uterine cavity measurements predict bleeding and pain in nulligravid women using intrauterine contraception.
Kaislasuo J; Heikinheimo O; Lähteenmäki P; Suhonen S
Hum Reprod; 2015 Jul; 30(7):1580-8. PubMed ID: 25990577
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Malpositioned intrauterine contraceptive devices: risk factors, outcomes, and future pregnancies.
Braaten KP; Benson CB; Maurer R; Goldberg AB
Obstet Gynecol; 2011 Nov; 118(5):1014-1020. PubMed ID: 22015868
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Performance of a handheld point of care ultrasonography to assess IUD position compared to conventional transvaginal ultrasonography.
Araujo KG; Yoshida A; Juliato CRT; Sarian LO; Derchain S
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care; 2024 Apr; 29(2):69-75. PubMed ID: 38651645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. CT imaging of intrauterine devices (IUD): expected findings, unexpected findings, and complications.
Zhu GG; Ludwig DR; Rogers DM; Olpin JD; Barker E; Freeman EA; Eisenberg DL; Siegel CL
Abdom Radiol (NY); 2024 Jan; 49(1):237-248. PubMed ID: 37907685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Imaging of intrauterine contraceptive devices.
Peri N; Graham D; Levine D
J Ultrasound Med; 2007 Oct; 26(10):1389-401. PubMed ID: 17901142
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Endometrial morphological changes in IUD users: a review.
Sheppard BL
Contraception; 1987 Jul; 36(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 3117492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
