Literature DB >> 28986616

Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Sofia Andrade de Oliveira1,2, Maria A T Bortolini3, Rodrigo A Castro3.   

Abstract

Mesh：

Year:  2017        PMID： 28986616     DOI： 10.1007/s00192-017-3494-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN： 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


× No keyword cloud information.
  3 in total

Review 1.  Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sofia Andrade de Oliveira; Marcelo C M Fonseca; Maria A T Bortolini; Manoel J B C Girão; Matheus T Roque; Rodrigo A Castro
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes.

Authors:  Shveta Kapoor; Kanapathippillai Sivanesan; Jessica Amy Robertson; Mayooran Veerasingham; Vishal Kapoor
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Mark E Vierhout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-07-23
  3 in total
  1 in total

1.  Comment on "Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis".

Authors:  Renée J Detollenaere; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-02-07       Impact factor: 2.894
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.