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

135 related items for PubMed ID: 32047968

  • 1. 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]

  • 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 Apr; 24(3):207-212. PubMed ID: 28657988
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. 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]

  • 4. Absorbable versus Permanent Suture for Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse.
    Chill HH, Cohen-Milun G, Cohen A, Moss NP, Winer JD, Shveiky D.
    J Minim Invasive Gynecol; 2022 Jun 01; 29(6):784-790. PubMed ID: 35283321
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5. 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 01; 39(7):1958-1965. PubMed ID: 32658368
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. 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 01; 23(2):223-7. PubMed ID: 21892683
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. 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]

  • 8. Uterosacral ligament vaginal vault suspension using delayed absorbable monofilament suture.
    Wong MJ, Rezvan A, Bhatia NN, Yazdany T.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2011 Nov 01; 22(11):1389-94. PubMed ID: 21681596
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Anterior Wall Success at 1 Year After Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension and Sacral Colpopexy.
    Bastawros DA, Tarr ME, Templin MA, Stepp KJ, Taylor GB, Myers EM.
    Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg; 2020 Oct 01; 26(10):612-616. PubMed ID: 30394992
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10. 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]

  • 11. 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 01; 28(8):1503-1507. PubMed ID: 33310165
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. 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 01; 27(1):88-93. PubMed ID: 30802607
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

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

  • 14. [A five-year analysis of effect on transvaginal high uterosacral ligament suspension with or without native-tissue repair for middle compartment defect].
    Zhang YH, Lu YX, Liu X, Liu JX, Shen WJ, Zhao Y, Niu K, Wang WY.
    Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi; 2019 Jul 25; 54(7):445-451. PubMed ID: 31365956
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. 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]

  • 16. Effect of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With or Without Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Pelvic Organ Vaginal Prolapse on Surgical Outcomes and Prolapse Symptoms at 5 Years in the OPTIMAL Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, Norton P, Gantz M, Richter HE, Weidner A, Menefee S, Schaffer J, Pugh N, Meikle S, NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network.
    JAMA; 2018 Apr 17; 319(15):1554-1565. PubMed ID: 29677302
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. 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, NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network.
    JAMA; 2019 Sep 17; 322(11):1054-1065. PubMed ID: 31529008
    [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 17; 27(5):797-803. PubMed ID: 26658893
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19. Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage.
    Lavelle ES, Giugale LE, Winger DG, Wang L, Carter-Brooks CM, Shepherd JP.
    Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2018 Jan 17; 218(1):116.e1-116.e5. PubMed ID: 28951262
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Reattachment of the endopelvic fascia to the apex during anterior colporrhaphy: does the type of suture matter?
    Zebede S, Smith AL, Lefevre R, Aguilar VC, Davila GW.
    Int Urogynecol J; 2013 Jan 17; 24(1):141-5. PubMed ID: 22777583
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 7.