Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 127

1.

BiClamp(®) forceps was significantly superior to conventional suture ligation in radical abdominal hysterectomy: a retrospective cohort study in 391 cases.

Li L, Qie MR, Wang XL, Huang J, Zhang Q, Li DQ, He YD.

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Aug;286(2):457-63. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2275-9. Epub 2012 Mar 29.

PMID:
22456787
2.

Bipolar coagulation with the BiClamp forceps versus conventional suture ligation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial in 175 vaginal hysterectomy patients.

Zubke W, Hornung R, Wässerer S, Hucke J, Füllers U, Werner C, Schmitz P, Lobodasch K, Hammermüller U, Wojdat R, Volz J, De Wilde RL, Wallwiener D.

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Nov;280(5):753-60. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1010-7. Epub 2009 Feb 28.

PMID:
19252920
3.

Laparoscopic radical hysterectomy using pulsed bipolar system: comparison with conventional bipolar electrosurgery.

Lee CL, Huang KG, Wang CJ, Lee PS, Hwang LL.

Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Jun;105(3):620-4. Epub 2007 Feb 15.

PMID:
17303226
4.

Laparoscopic compared with open radical hysterectomy in obese women with early-stage cervical cancer.

Park JY, Kim DY, Kim JH, Kim YM, Kim YT, Nam JH.

Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;119(6):1201-9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318256ccc5.

PMID:
22617585
5.

Randomized study comparing use of THUNDERBEAT technology vs standard electrosurgery during laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy for gynecologic cancer.

Fagotti A, Vizzielli G, Fanfani F, Gallotta V, Rossitto C, Costantini B, Gueli-Alletti S, Avenia N, Iodice R, Scambia G.

J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 May-Jun;21(3):447-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2013.12.001. Epub 2013 Dec 8.

PMID:
24325899
6.

Vaginal hysterectomy and multimodal anaesthesia with bipolar vessel sailing (Biclamp(®) forceps) versus conventional suture technique: quality results' analysis.

Leo L, Riboni F, Gambaro C, Surico D, Surico N.

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012 Apr;285(4):1025-9. doi: 10.1007/s00404-011-2093-5. Epub 2011 Oct 8.

PMID:
21984039
7.

Minimally invasive vaginal hysterectomy using bipolar vessel sealing: preliminary experience with 500 cases.

Ghirardini G, Mohamed M, Bartolamasi A, Malmusi S, Dalla Vecchia E, Algeri I, Zanni A, Renzi A, Cavicchioni O, Braconi A, Pazzoni F, Alboni C.

J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Jan;33(1):79-81. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2012.721027.

PMID:
23259887
8.

Radical vaginal hysterectomy with extraperitoneal pelvic lymphadenectomy in cervical cancer.

Savino L, Borruto F, Comparetto C, Massi GB.

Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2001;22(1):31-5.

PMID:
11321490
9.

A multi-institutional experience with robotic-assisted radical hysterectomy for early stage cervical cancer.

Lowe MP, Chamberlain DH, Kamelle SA, Johnson PR, Tillmanns TD.

Gynecol Oncol. 2009 May;113(2):191-4. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2009.01.018. Epub 2009 Feb 26.

PMID:
19249082
10.

A comparison of laparascopic-assisted radical vaginal hysterectomy and radical abdominal hysterectomy in the treatment of cervical cancer.

Steed H, Rosen B, Murphy J, Laframboise S, De Petrillo D, Covens A.

Gynecol Oncol. 2004 Jun;93(3):588-93.

PMID:
15196849
11.

Clinical-pathologic and morbidity analyses of Types 2 and 3 abdominal radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer.

Pikaart DP, Holloway RW, Ahmad S, Finkler NJ, Bigsby GE 4th, Ortiz BH, Denardis SA.

Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Nov;107(2):205-10. Epub 2007 Aug 9.

PMID:
17692367
12.
13.

Comparison of total laparoscopic and abdominal radical hysterectomy for patients with early-stage cervical cancer.

Frumovitz M, dos Reis R, Sun CC, Milam MR, Bevers MW, Brown J, Slomovitz BM, Ramirez PT.

Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jul;110(1):96-102.

PMID:
17601902
14.

Comparison of total laparoscopic, vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy.

Schindlbeck C, Klauser K, Dian D, Janni W, Friese K.

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008 Apr;277(4):331-7. Epub 2007 Oct 16.

PMID:
17938945
15.

Robotic versus open radical hysterectomy: a comparative study at a single institution.

Ko EM, Muto MG, Berkowitz RS, Feltmate CM.

Gynecol Oncol. 2008 Dec;111(3):425-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.08.016. Epub 2008 Oct 16.

PMID:
18929400
16.

Experience and efficacy of a bipolar vessel sealing system for radical abdominal hysterectomy.

Kyo S, Mizumoto Y, Takakura M, Hashimoto M, Mori N, Ikoma T, Nakamura M, Inoue M.

Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2009 Dec;19(9):1658-61. doi: 10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181a840d1.

PMID:
19955955
17.

Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus total abdominal hysterectomy for obese women with endometrial cancer.

Obermair A, Manolitsas TP, Leung Y, Hammond IG, McCartney AJ.

Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2005 Mar-Apr;15(2):319-24.

PMID:
15823119
18.

[Impact of surgical resection extent on the prognosis of clinical stage I endometrial carcinoma].

Yan X, Gao YN, Jiang GQ, Gao M, An N.

Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2009 Mar;31(3):208-12. Chinese.

PMID:
19615262
19.

[Feasibility of unilateral or bilateral nerve-sparing radical hysterectomy in patients with cervical cancer and evaluation of the post-surgery recovery of the bladder and rectal function].

Zhu T, Yu AJ, Shou HF, Chen X, Zhu JQ, Yang ZY, Zhang P, Gao YL.

Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2011 Jan;33(1):53-7. Chinese.

PMID:
21575466
20.

[A comparative analysis of hysterectomies].

Aniuliene R, Varzgaliene L, Varzgalis M.

Medicina (Kaunas). 2007;43(2):118-24. Lithuanian.

Supplemental Content

Support Center