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.
10. Extraperitoneal uterosacral ligament suspension by using the cervix as a traction device. Pal M, Bandyopadhyay S. Int Urogynecol J; 2020 Aug; 31(8):1701. PubMed ID: 32034457 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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; 209(5):486.e1-5. PubMed ID: 23770468 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Outcomes of Manchester procedure combined with high uterosacral ligament suspension for uterine prolapse. Wang Q, Wu N, Li Y, Lin C, Xu Y, Chen X. J Obstet Gynaecol Res; 2023 Apr; 49(4):1273-1282. PubMed ID: 36734101 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment. Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Lippmann Q, Lukacz ES, Luber KM, Nager CW. Perm J; 2014 Apr; 18(4):40-4. PubMed ID: 25662525 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]