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
202 related items for PubMed ID: 30176363
1. Evaluation of Positioning Devices for Optimization of Outcomes in Laparoscopic and Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery. Das D, Propst K, Wechter ME, Kho RM. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2019 Feb; 26(2):244-252.e1. PubMed ID: 30176363 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of the Memory Foam Pad Versus the Bean Bag with Shoulder Braces in Preventing Patient Displacement during Gynecologic Laparoscopic Surgery. Farag S, Rosen L, Ascher-Walsh C. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2018 Jan; 25(1):153-157. PubMed ID: 28919502 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing cephalad migration in robotic gynecologic surgery using egg-crate foam versus the Pink Pad®. Steck-Bayat KP, Henderson S, Aguirre AG, Smith RB, Mahnert NM, Gerkin RD, Mourad J. J Robot Surg; 2020 Apr; 14(2):343-347. PubMed ID: 31256328 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Neurologic injury and patient displacement in gynecologic laparoscopic surgery using a beanbag and shoulder supports. Treszezamsky AD, Fenske S, Moshier EL, Ascher-Walsh CJ. Int J Gynaecol Obstet; 2018 Jan; 140(1):26-30. PubMed ID: 28921506 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Use of anti-skid material and patient-positioning to prevent patient shifting during robotic-assisted gynecologic procedures. Klauschie J, Wechter ME, Jacob K, Zanagnolo V, Montero R, Magrina J, Kho R. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2010 Jan; 17(4):504-7. PubMed ID: 20471916 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Patient positioning for robot-assisted laparoscopic benign gynecologic surgery: A review. Takmaz O, Asoglu MR, Gungor M. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2018 Apr; 223():8-13. PubMed ID: 29428480 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Intraoperative peripheral nerve injury related to lithotomy positioning with steep Trendelenburg in patients undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery - A systematic review. Bjøro B, Mykkeltveit I, Rustøen T, Candas Altinbas B, Røise O, Bentsen SB. J Adv Nurs; 2020 Feb; 76(2):490-503. PubMed ID: 31736124 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Evaluation of Pulmonary Complications in Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery. Burks C, Nelson L, Kumar D, Fogg L, Saha C, Guirguis A, Rotmensch J, Dewdney S. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2017 Feb; 24(2):280-285. PubMed ID: 27836798 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of Carbon Dioxide Absorption Rates in Gynecologic Laparoscopy with a Valveless versus Standard Insufflation System: Randomized Controlled Trial. Madueke-Laveaux OS, Advincula A, Grimes CL, Walters R, Kim JH, Simpson K, Truong M, Young C, Landau R, Ryntz T. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020 Jan; 27(1):225-234. PubMed ID: 31125720 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in gynecology: which should we use? Fanfani F, Restaino S, Ercoli A, Chiantera V, Fagotti A, Gallotta V, Monterossi G, Cappuccio S, Scambia G. Minerva Ginecol; 2016 Aug; 68(4):423-30. PubMed ID: 26633042 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review. Picerno T, Sloan NL, Escobar P, Ramirez PT. Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2017 Jan; 216(1):10-26. PubMed ID: 27640938 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Mortality Rates in Benign Laparoscopic and Robotic Gynecologic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Behbehani S, Suarez-Salvador E, Buras M, Magtibay P, Magrina J. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2020 Jan; 27(3):603-612.e1. PubMed ID: 31627007 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Robotic-Assisted Gynecologic Surgery and Perioperative Morbidity in Elderly Women. Krause AK, Muntz HG, McGonigle KF. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2016 Jan; 23(6):949-53. PubMed ID: 27287246 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Systematic review of robotic surgery in gynecology: robotic techniques compared with laparoscopy and laparotomy. Gala RB, Margulies R, Steinberg A, Murphy M, Lukban J, Jeppson P, Aschkenazi S, Olivera C, South M, Lowenstein L, Schaffer J, Balk EM, Sung V, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons Systematic Review Group. J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2014 Sep; 21(3):353-61. PubMed ID: 24295923 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Gynecologic robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery: prospective analysis of feasibility, safety, and technique. Scheib SA, Fader AN. Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2015 Feb; 212(2):179.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25088863 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Robotic-assisted vs traditional laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Mäenpää MM, Nieminen K, Tomás EI, Laurila M, Luukkaala TH, Mäenpää JU. Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2016 Nov; 215(5):588.e1-588.e7. PubMed ID: 27288987 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. The da Vinci Xi Robotic Four-Arm Approach for Robotic-Assisted Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy. Grimminger PP, Hadzijusufovic E, Ruurda JP, Lang H, van Hillegersberg R. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2018 Aug; 66(5):407-409. PubMed ID: 29625500 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Safety and Effectiveness of SAF-R, a Novel Patient Positioning Device for Robot-Assisted Pelvic Surgery in Trendelenburg Position. Talab SS, Elmi A, Sarma J, Barrisford GW, Tabatabaei S. J Endourol; 2016 Mar; 30(3):286-92. PubMed ID: 26531773 [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] Page: [Next] [New Search]