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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

143 related items for PubMed ID: 21892683

  • 1. Permanent suture used in uterosacral ligament suspension offers better anatomical support than delayed absorbable suture.
    Chung CP, Miskimins R, Kuehl TJ, Yandell PM, Shull BL.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Feb; 23(2):223-7. PubMed ID: 21892683
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: A Retrospective Cohort of Absorbable and Permanent Suture Groups.
    Bradley MS, Bickhaus JA, Amundsen CL, Newcomb LK, Truong T, Weidner AC, Siddiqui NY.
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2018 Feb; 24(3):207-212. PubMed ID: 28657988
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension using delayed absorbable monofilament suture.
    Wong MJ, Rezvan A, Bhatia NN, Yazdany T.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2011 Nov; 22(11):1389-94. PubMed ID: 21681596
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4. A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension.
    Kowalski JT, Genadry R, Ten Eyck P, Bradley CS.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2021 Apr; 32(4):785-790. PubMed ID: 32047968
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. Suture Complication Rates and Surgical Outcomes According to the Nonabsorbable Suture Materials Used in Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension: Polyester versus Polypropylene.
    Lee J, Oh S, Jeon MJ.
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2021 Aug; 28(8):1503-1507. PubMed ID: 33310165
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Is absorbable suture superior to permanent suture for uterosacral ligament suspension?
    Peng L, Liu YH, He SX, Di XP, Shen H, Luo DY.
    Neurourol Urodyn; 2020 Sep; 39(7):1958-1965. PubMed ID: 32658368
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
    Pollack BL, Popiel P, Toaff MC, Drugge E, Bielawski A, Sacks A, Bibi M, Friedman-Ciment R, LeBron K, Alishahian L, Phillips D, Rubino SR, Pollack S, Khan RS, Khan ES, Pape DM, Grimes CL.
    Obstet Gynecol; 2023 Feb 01; 141(2):268-283. PubMed ID: 36649334
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. High uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension: comparison of absorbable vs. permanent suture for apical fixation.
    Kasturi S, Bentley-Taylor M, Woodman PJ, Terry CL, Hale DS.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Jul 01; 23(7):941-5. PubMed ID: 22402640
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. Permanent or absorbable suture material for sacrospinous ligament fixation: Does it matter?
    Padoa A, Ziv Y, Tsviban A, Tomashev R, Smorgick N, Fligelman T.
    Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2023 Apr 01; 283():112-117. PubMed ID: 36827752
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture for Vaginal Mesh Fixation During Total Hysterectomy and Sacrocolpopexy: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Matthews CA, Geller EJ, Henley BR, Kenton K, Myers EM, Dieter AA, Parnell B, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Mueller MG, Wu JM.
    Obstet Gynecol; 2020 Aug 01; 136(2):355-364. PubMed ID: 32649494
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Suture complications in a teaching institution among patients undergoing uterosacral ligament suspension with permanent braided suture.
    Yazdany T, Yip S, Bhatia NN, Nguyen JN.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2010 Jul 01; 21(7):813-8. PubMed ID: 20186391
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Functional and anatomic comparison of 2 versus 3 suture placement for uterosacral ligament suspension: a cadaver study.
    Montoya TI, Dillon SJ, Balgobin S, Wai CY.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2013 Nov 01; 209(5):486.e1-5. PubMed ID: 23770468
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. 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 10; 366():l5149. PubMed ID: 31506252
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. Risk factors for ureteral occlusion during transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension.
    Jackson E, Bilbao JA, Vera RW, Mulla ZD, Mallett VT, Montoya TI.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2015 Dec 10; 26(12):1809-14. PubMed ID: 26174656
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. A novel transvaginal approach to correct recurrent apical prolapse after failed sacral colpopexy: case series.
    Bracken JN, Tran DH, Kuehl TJ, Larsen W, Yandell PM, Shull BL.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Oct 10; 23(10):1429-33. PubMed ID: 22527557
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension by using the cervix as a traction device.
    Pal M, Bandyopadhyay S.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Aug 10; 31(8):1701. PubMed ID: 32034457
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 8.