Doraiswami, S, Johnson, T, Rao, S, et al. Study of endometrial pathology in abnormal uterine bleeding. J Obstet Gynaecol India 2011;61:426–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kubista, E, Remenyi, IM. Leitlinien Zur Prävention, Früherkennung und Behandlungdes Des Mammakarzinoms der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologie (AGO). Speculum d Zeitschr Gynakol Geburts. 2006;24:33e40 [In German, English abstract].Google Scholar

Obeidat, B, Mohtaseb, A, Matalka, I. The diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia on curettage: how reliable is it? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009;279:489–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Karageyim Karsidag, AY, Buyukbayrak, EE, Kars, B, Unal, O, Turan, MC. Trans-vaginal sonography, sonohysterography, and hysteroscopy for investigation of focal intrauterine lesions in women with recurrent postmenopausal bleeding after dilatation & curettage. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010;281:637–43.Google Scholar

Chen, YL, Cheng, WF, Lin, MC, et al. Concurrent endometrial carcinoma in patients with a curettage diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia. J Formos Med Assoc 2009;108:502–507.Google Scholar

Thiel, FC, Renner, SP, Ackermann, S, et al. Comparison of pretreatment assessment of intrauterine tumor spread in endometrial carcinoma using ultrasonography, hysteroscopy, and fractional curettage. Gynecol Surg 2008;5:15–19.Google Scholar

Naderi, T, Asharaf-ganjooei, T, Bahrampoor, A, Mehrimahani, I. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of pipelle biopsy, dilatation and curettage and hysterectomy in detection of endometrial lesions. J Kerman Univ Med Sci 2006;13:159–163.Google Scholar

Humber, N. The occasional D & C. Can J Rural Med 2009;14:115–118.Google ScholarPubMed

Bettocchi, S, Ceci, O, Vicino, M, et al. Diagnostic inadequacy of dilatation and curettage. Fertil Steril 2001;75:803–805.Google Scholar

Goldstein, SR. Modern evaluation of the endometrium. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:168–176.Google Scholar

Bettocchi, S, Ceci, O, Spinelli, ML, et al. Office hysteroscopy. Ref Gynecol Obstet 2010;12:1e9.Google Scholar

Bettocchi, S, Selvaggi, L. A vaginoscopic approach to reduce the pain of office hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997;4:255–258.Google Scholar

Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynaecology. Practice bulletin no.136: management of abnormal uterine bleeding associated with ovulatory dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:176–185.Google Scholar

Marsh, F, Kremer, C, Duffy, S. Delivering an effective outpatient service in gynaecology: a randomized controlled trial analysing the cost of outpatient versus day-case hysteroscopy. BJOG 2004;111:243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

El-Toukhy, T, Campo, R, Khalaf, Y, et al. Hysteroscopy in recurrent in-vitro fertilisation failure (TROPHY): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387:2614–21.Google Scholar

Campo, R, Molinas, CR, Rombauts, L, et al. Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod 2005;20:258–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Calagna, Di Carlo, C. Tips and tricks in office hysteroscopy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;4:3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nappi, C., Di Spiezio Sardo, A. State of the Art Hysteroscopic Approaches to Pathologies of the Genital Tract. Tuttlingen: Endo-Press, 2016.Google Scholar

Salazar, CA, Isaacson, KB. Office operative hysteroscopy: an update. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25:199–208.Google Scholar

Bedner, R, Rzepka-Gorska, I. Hysteroscopy with directed biopsy versus dilatation and curettage for the diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia and cancer in perimenopausal women. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2007;28:400–402.Google Scholar

Bettocchi, S, DiVenere, R, Pansini, N, et al. Endometrial biopsies using small diameter hysteroscopes and 5 Fr instruments: how can we obtain enough material for correct histologic diagnosis? J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2002;9:290–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siegler, AM, Kemmann, E. Location and removal of misplaced or embedded intrauterine devices by hysteroscopy. J Reprod Med 1976;16:139–144.Google Scholar

Bettocchi, S, Ceci, O, Nappi, L, et al. Operative office hysteroscopy without anesthesia: analysis of 4863 cases performed with mechanical instruments. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2004;11:59–61.Google Scholar

Garuti, G, Centinaio, G, Luerti, M. Outpatient hysteroscopic polypectomy in postmenopausal women: a comparison between mechanical and electrosurgical resection. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:595–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Smith, PP, Middleton, LJ, Connor, M, Clark, TJ. Hysteroscopic morcellation compared with electrical resection of endometrial polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:745–751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Noventa, M, Ancona, E, Quaranta, M, et al. Intrauterine morcellator devices: the icon of hysteroscopic future or merely a marketing image? A systematic review regarding safety, efficacy, advantages, and contraindications. Reprod Sci 2015;22:1289–1296.Google Scholar

Dealberti, D, Riboni, F, Cosma, S, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of office-based polypectomy with a 16 F Mini-resectoscope: a multicenter clinical study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23:418–424.Google Scholar

Guida, M, Di Spiezio-Sardo, A, Acunzo G, S, et al. Vaginoscopic versus traditional office hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 2006;21:3253–3257.Google Scholar

Wamsteker, K, Emanuel, MH, de Kruif, JH. Transcervical hysteroscopic resection of submucous fibroids for abnormal uterine bleeding: results regarding the degree of intramural extension. Obstet Gynecol 1993;82:736–740.Google Scholar

Salim, R, Lee, C, Davies, A, et al. A comparative study of three-dimensional saline infusion sonohysterography and diagnostic hysteroscopy for the classification of submucous fibroids. Hum Reprod 2005;20:253–257.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Mazzon, I, Bramante, S, et al. Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comprehensive review of surgical techniques. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:101–119.Google Scholar

McGurgan, P, O’Donovan, P. Second-generation endometrial ablation: an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007;21:931–945.Google Scholar

Angioni, S, Pontis, A, Nappi, L, et al. Endometrial ablation: first vs. second generation techniques. Minerva Ginecol 2016;68:143–153.Google Scholar

Campo, R, Meier, R, Dhont, N, Mestdagh, G, Ombelet, W. Implementation of hysteroscopy in an infertility clinic: the one-stop uterine diagnosis and treatment. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2014;6:235–239.Google Scholar

Perez-Medina, T, Lopez-Mora, P, Rojo, J. Comparison of the hysteroscopy-biopsy with the D & C in the diagnosis of abnormal uterine bleeding. Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecologia 1994;37:479–486.Google Scholar

Janssens, JP, Rotenberg, L, Sentis, M, Motmans, K, Schulz-Wendtland, R. Caution with microbiopsies of the breast: displaced cancer cells and ballistics. Eur J Cancer Prev 2006;15;471–473.Google Scholar

Bettocchi, S, Bramante, S, Bifulco, G, et al. Challenging the cervix: strategies to overcome the anatomic impediments to hysteroscopy: analysis of 31,052 office hysteroscopies. Fertil Steril 2016;105: e16–e17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campo, R, Molinas, CR, Rombauts, L, et al. Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod 2005;20:258–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Guida, M, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Sparice, S, et al. Vaginoscopic versus traditional office hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 2006;21:3253–32 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

AAGL. AAGL Practice Report: Practice Guidelines for Management Of Intrauterine Synechiae. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Campo, R, Van Belle, Y, Rombauts, L, Brosens, I, Gordts, S. Office minihysteroscopy. Hum Reprod Update 1999;5:73–81.Google Scholar

Roy, KK, Lingampally, A, Kansal, Y, et al. Pilot study comparing hysteroscopic adhesiolysis by conventional resectoscope versus mini-resectoscope. Oman Med J 2017;32:492–498.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Calagna, G, Scognamiglio, M, et al. Prevention of intrauterine post-surgical adhesions in hysteroscopy: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;203:182–192.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Spinelli, M, Bramante, S, et al. Efficacy of a polyethylene oxide-sodium carboxymethylcellulose gel in prevention of intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:462–469.Google Scholar

Bettocchi, S, Ceci, O, Di Venere, R, et al. Advanced operative office hysteroscopy without anaesthesia: analysis of 501 cases treated with a 5 Fr, bipolar electrode. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2435–2438.Google Scholar

Papalampros, P, Gambadauro, P, Papadopoulos, N, et al. The mini-resectoscope: a new instrument for office hysteroscopic surgery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88:227–230.Google Scholar

Noventa, M, Ancona, E, Quaranta, M, et al. Intrauterine morcellator devices: the icon of hysteroscopic future or merely a marketing image? A systematic review regarding safety, efficacy, advantages, and contraindications. Reprod Sci 2015;22:1289–1296.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Mazzon, I, Bramante, S, et al. Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comprehensive review of surgical techniques. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:101–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Emanuel, MH, Wamsteker, K. The intrauterine morcellator: a new hysteroscopic operating technique to remove intrauterine polyps and fibroid. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:62–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bettocchi, S, Di Spiezio, A, Ceci, O, et al. A new hysteroscopic technique for the preparation of partially intramural myomas in office setting (OPPIuM technique): a pilot study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2009;16:748–754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mazzon, I. Nuova tecnica per la miomectomia isteroscopia: enucleazione con ansa fredda. In: Testo-Atlante di Chirurgia Endoscopica Ginecologica. Palermo: COFESE, 1995.Google Scholar

Litta, P, Vasile, C, Merlin, F, et al. A new technique of hysteroscopic myomectomy with enucleation in toto. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2003;10:263–270.Google Scholar

Hamou, J. Electroresection of fibroids. In: Endoscopic Surgery for Gynecologists. London: W.B. Saunders, 1993, pp. 327–330.Google Scholar

Bigatti, G, Ferrario, C, Rosales, M, Baglioni, A, Bianchi, S. A 4-cm G2 cervical submucosal myoma removed with the IBS® Integrated Bigatti Shaver. Gynecol Surg 2012;9:453–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gordts, S, Grimbizis, G, Campo, R. Symptoms and classifications of uterine adenomyosis, including the place of hysteroscopy in diagnosis. Fertil Steril 2018;109:380–388.Google Scholar

Molinas, CR, Campo, R. Office hysteroscopy and adenomyosis. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006;20:557–567.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Calagna, G, Santangelo, F, et al. The role of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of adenomyosis. Bio Med Res Int 2017;2017: 2518396.Google Scholar

Grimbizis, GF, Gordts, S, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2032–2044.Google Scholar

Meier, R, Campo, R. T-shaped uterus in Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations: Classification, Diagnosis, and Management. London: Springer, 2015.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Florio, P, Nazzaro, G, et al. Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty to expand dysmorphic uteri (HoMe- DU technique): a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:166–174.Google Scholar

Homer, HA, Li, TC, Cooke, ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1–14.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Zizolfi, B, Bettocchi, S, et al. Accuracy of hysteroscopic metroplasty with the combination of presurgical 3-dimensional ultrasonography and a novel graduated intrauterine palpator: a randomized controlled trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23:557–566.Google Scholar

McGurgan, P, O’Donovan, P. Second-generation endometrial ablation: an overview. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2007;21:931–945.Google Scholar

Angioni, S, Pontis, A, Nappi, L, et al. Endometrial ablation: first vs second generation techniques. Minerva Gynecol 2016;68:143–153.Google Scholar

Capmas, P, Lobersztajn, A, Duminil, L, et al. Operative hysteroscopy for retained products of conception: efficacy and subsequent fertility. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2019;48:151–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goldenberg, M, Schiff, E, Achiron, R, et al. Managing residual trophoblastic tissue: hysteroscopy for directing curettage. J Reprod Med 1997;42:26–28.Google Scholar

Sowter, MC, Farquhar, CM, Petrie, KJ, Gudex, G. A randomised trial comparing single dose systemic methotrexate and laparoscopic surgery for the treatment of unruptured tubal pregnancy. BJOG 2001;108:192–203.Google ScholarPubMed

Graczykowski, JW, Mishell, DR Jr. Methotrexate prophylaxis for persistent ectopic pregnancy after conservative treatment by salpingostomy. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:118–122.Google Scholar

Vermesh, M, Silva, PD, Rosen, GF, et al. Management of unruptured ectopic gestation by linear salpingostomy: a prospective, randomized clinical trial of laparoscopy versus laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 1989;73:400–404.Google Scholar

Lundorff, P, Thorburn, J, Hahlin, M, Kallfelt, B, Lindblom, B. Laparoscopic surgery in ectopic pregnancy: a randomized trial versus laparotomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1991;70:343–348.Google Scholar

Gray, DT, Thorburn, J, Lundorff, P, Strandell, A, Lindblom, B. A cost-effectiveness study of a randomised trial of laparoscopy versus laparotomy for ectopic pregnancy. Lancet 1995;345:1139–1143.Google Scholar

Mol, F, van Mello, NM, Strandell, A, Jurkovic, D, Ross, J. Salpingotomy versus salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (ESEP study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014;383:1483–1489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Becker, S, Solomayer, E, Hornung, R, et al. Optimal treatment for patients with ectopic pregnancies and a history of fertility-reducing factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2011;283:41–45.Google Scholar

Lee, DH. Recurrent ectopic pregnancy after ipsilateral partial salpingectomy: a case report. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2015;42:540–542.Google Scholar

Lee, MH, Im, SY, Kim, MK, Shin, SY, Park, WI. Comparison of laparoscopic cornual resection and cornuotomy for interstitial pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:397–401.Google Scholar

Kaur, N, Reid, F, Ma, K. Ovarian ectopic pregnancy: laparoscopic excision and ovarian conservation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2019;26:1006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kaijser, J, Bourne, T, Valentin, L, et al. Improving strategies for diagnosing ovarian cancer: a summary of the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) studies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:9–20.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of suspected ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Green-top Guideline No. 62. 2011.Google Scholar

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The management of ovarian cysts in postmenopausal women. Green-top Guideline No. 34. 2016.Google Scholar

Canis, M, Rabischong, B, Houlle, C, et al. Laparoscopic management of adnexal masses: a gold standard? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2002;14:423–428.Google Scholar

Canis, M, Botchorishvili, R, Manhes, H, et al. Management of adnexal masses: role and risk of laparoscopy. Semin Surg Oncol 2000;19:28–35.Google Scholar

Canis, M, Mage, G, Pouly, JL, et al. Laparoscopic management of suspicious adnexal masses. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1994;1:S6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Canis, M, Mage, G, Pouly, JL, et al. Laparoscopic diagnosis of adnexal cystic masses: a 12-year experience with long-term follow-up. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:707–712.Google Scholar

Wiskind, AK, Toledo, AA, Dudley, AG, Zusmanis, K. Adhesion formation after ovarian wound repair in New Zealand white rabbits: a comparison of ovarian microsurgical closure with ovarian nonclosure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990;163:1674–1678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Exacoustos, C, De Felice, G, Pizzo, A, et al. Isolated ovarian endometrioma: a history between myth and reality. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25:884–891.Google Scholar

Jadoul, P, Kitajima, M, Donnez, O, Squifflet, J, Donnez, J. Surgical treatment of ovarian endometriomas: state of the art? Fertil Steril 2012;98:556–563.Google Scholar

López de la Torre, MA, Abrao, HM, Fernandes, LF, Kho, RM, Abrao, MS. Ten principles for safe surgical treatment of ovarian endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:203–204.Google Scholar

Muzii, L, Luciano, AA, Zupi, E, Panici, PB. Effect of surgery for endometrioma on ovarian function: a different point of view. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2014;21:531–533.Google Scholar

Bourdel, N, Roman, H, Mage, G, Canis, M. Surgery for the management of ovarian endometriomas: from the physiopathology to the pre-, peri- and postoperative treatment. Gynécol Obstét Fertil 2011;39:709–721.Google Scholar

Muzii, L, Achilli, C, Bergamini, V, et al. Comparison between the stripping technique and the combined excisional/ablative technique for the treatment of bilateral ovarian endometriomas: a multicentre RCT. Hum Reprod 2016;31:339–344.Google ScholarPubMed

Working group of ESGE, ESHRE and WES. Recommendations for the surgical treatment of endometriosis – part 1: ovarian endometrioma. Gynecolog Surg 2017;14:27.Google Scholar

Eltabbakh, GH, Charboneau, AM, Eltabbakh, NG. Laparoscopic surgery for large benign ovarian cysts. Gynecol Oncol 2008;108:72–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mecke, H, Savvas, V. Laparoscopic surgery of dermoid cysts: intraoperative spillage and complications. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;96:80–84.Google Scholar

Sinha, A, Ewies, AA. Ovarian mature cystic teratoma: challenges of surgical management. Obstet Gynecol Int 2016;2016:2390178.Google Scholar

Vaudoyer, F, Golfier, F, Raudrant, D. Operative technique for assumed benign ovarian cysts. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2001;30:S68–S77.Google Scholar

Borghese, B, Marzouk, P, Santulli, P, de Ziegler, D, Chapron, C. Surgical treatments of presumed benign ovarian tumors. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2013;42:786–793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Audebert, AJ, Gomel, V. Role of microlaparoscopy in the diagnosis of peritoneal and visceral adhesions and in the prevention of bowel injury associated with blind trocar insertion. Fertil Steril 2000;73:631–635.Google Scholar

Ahmad, G, O’Flynn, H, Duffy, JM, Phillips, K, Watson, A. Laparoscopic entry techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;2:CD006583.Google Scholar

Levy, BS. Modern management of uterine fibroids. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008;87:812–823.Google Scholar

Wallwiener, D, Jonat, W, Kreienberg, R, et al. Atlas der gynäkologischen Operationen. New York: Georg Thieme Verlag, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirschelmann, A, De Wilde, RL. Plastic and reconstructive uterus operations by minimally invasive surgery? A review on myomectomy. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 2012.doi:10.3205/iprs000009.Google Scholar

Tanos, V, Berry, KE, Frist, M, Campo, R, DeWilde, RL. Prevention and management of complications in laparoscopic myomectomy. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:8250952.Google Scholar

Doridot, V, Dubuisson, JB, Chapron, C, Fauconnier, A, Babaki-Fard, K. Recurrence of leiomyomata after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2001;8:495–500.Google Scholar

Thubert, T, Foulot, H, Vinchant, M, et al. Surgical treatment: myomectomy and hysterectomy; endoscopy: a major advancement. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016;34:104–121.Google Scholar

Vilos, GA, Allaire, C, Laberge, PY, Leyland, N, Special, C. The management of uterine leiomyomas. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37:157–178.Google Scholar

Neis, KJ, Zubke, W, Romer, T, et al. indications and route of hysterectomy for benign diseases. guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016;76:350–364.Google Scholar

Stuparich, MA, Lee, TTM. Tips and tricks for performing salpingectomy at the time of laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beckmann, MW, Juhasz-Boss, I, Denschlag, D, et al. Surgical methods for the treatment of uterine fibroids: risk of uterine sarcoma and problems of morcellation. Position paper of the DGGG. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015;75:148–164.Google Scholar

Aarts, JW, Nieboer, TE, Johnson, N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;CD003677.Google ScholarPubMed

Fiaccavento, A, Landi, S, Barbieri, F, et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy in cases of very large uteri: a retrospective comparative study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:559–563.Google Scholar

Magrina, JF. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2002;45:469–480.Google Scholar

Bogani, G, Dowdy, SC, Cliby, WA, et al. Management of endometrial cancer: issues and controversies. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2016;37:6–12.Google ScholarPubMed

Leitao, MM. Current and future surgical approaches in the management of endometrial carcinoma. Future Oncol 2008;4:389–401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chen, Y, Xu, H, Li, Y, et al. The outcome of laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and lymphadenectomy for cervical cancer: a prospective analysis of 295 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:2847–2855.Google Scholar

Gil-Moreno, A, Puig, O, Perez-Benavente, MA, et al. Total laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (type II–III) with pelvic lymphadenectomy in early invasive cervical cancer. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005;12:113–120.Google Scholar

Amant, F, Moerman, P, Neven, P, et al. Treatment modalities in endometrial cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2007;19:479–485.Google Scholar

Landoni, F, Maneo, A, Cormio, G, et al. Class II versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB–IIA cervical cancer: a prospective randomized study. Gynecol Oncol 2001;80:3–12.Google Scholar

Querleu, D, Cibula, D, Abu-Rustum, NR. 2017 update on the Querleu–Morrow classification of radical hysterectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2017;24:3406–3412.Google Scholar

Matsuo, K, Machida, H, Shoupe, D, et al. Ovarian conservation and overall survival in young women with early-stage low-grade endometrial cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:761–770.Google Scholar

Chen, J, Wang, R, Zhang, B, et al. Safety of ovarian preservation in women with stage I and II cervical adenocarcinoma: a retrospective study and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:460e1–e1e13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boing, C, Kimmig, R [Surgical management of endometriosis: an overview]. Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 2007;47:124–131.Google ScholarPubMed

Cao, Q, Lu, F, Feng, WW, Ding, JX, Hua, KQ. Comparison of complete and incomplete excision of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Int J Clin Exp Med 2015;8:21497–21506.Google ScholarPubMed

Taylor, MM. Endometriosis: a missed malady. AORN J 2003;77:298,301–309.Google Scholar

Garry, R. The effectiveness of laparoscopic excision of endometriosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2004;16:299–303.Google Scholar

Keckstein, J. [Surgical therapy of endometriosis]. Wien Med Wochenschr 1999;149:366–371.Google Scholar

Solomayer, E-F, Juhasz-Böss, I. Kursbuch gynäkologische Endoskopie. New York: Georg Thieme Verlag, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lam, A, Kaufman, Y, Khong, SY, et al. Dealing with complications in laparoscopy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009;23:631–646.Google Scholar

Becker, CM, Gattrell, WT, Gude, K, Singh, SS. Reevaluating response and failure of medical treatment of endometriosis: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2017;108:125–136.Google Scholar

Lauterbach, R, Matanes, E, Lowenstein, L. Review of robotic surgery in gynecology: the future is here. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2017;8:e0019.Google Scholar

Krishnakumar, S, Tambe, P. Entry complications in laparoscopic surgery. J Gynecol Endosc Surg 2009;1:4e11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Laskaris, J, Regan, K. Soft Tissue Robotics: The Next Generation, vol. 7. Dallas, TX: MD Buyline, 2014.Google Scholar

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 628: robotic surgery in Gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:760–767.Google Scholar

Rusch, P, Kimmig, R, Lecuru, F, et al. The Society of European Robotic Gynaecological Surgery (SERGS) pilot curriculum for robot assisted gynecological surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2018;297:415–420.Google Scholar

Sandadi, S, Gadzinski, JA, Lee, S, et al. Fellowship learning curve associated with completing a robotic assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 2014;132:102–106.Google Scholar

Wright, JD, Ananth, CV, Lewin, SN, et al. Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 2013;309:689–698.Google Scholar

Nawfal, AK, Orady, M, Eisenstein, D, Wegienka, G. Effect of body mass index on robotic-assisted total laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011;18:328–332.Google Scholar

Orady, M, Nawfal, AK, Wegienka, G. Does size matter? The effect of uterine weight on robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy outcomes. J Robot Surg 2011;5:267–272.Google Scholar

Payne, TN, Dauterive, FR, Pitter, MC, et al. Robotically assisted hysterectomy in patients with large uteri: outcomes in five community practices. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:535–542.Google Scholar

Orady, M, Hrynewych, A, Nawfal, AK, Wegienka, G. Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches. JSLS 2012;16:542–548.Google Scholar

Nezhat, C, Lavie, O, Hsu, S, et al. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic myomectomy compared with standard laparoscopic myomectomy: a retrospective matched control study. Fertil Steril 2009;91:556–559.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Freeman, RM, Pantazis, K, Thomson, A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:377–384.Google Scholar

Paraiso, MF, Jelovsek, JE, Frick, A, Chen, CC, Barber, MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1005–1013.Google Scholar

Paley, PJ, Veljovich, DS, Shah, CA, et al. Surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology in the era of robotics: analysis of first 1000 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:551e1–551e9.Google Scholar

Ind, T, Laios, A, Hacking, M, Nobbenhuis, M. A comparison of operative outcomes between standard and robotic laparoscopic surgery for endometrial cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 2017;13:e1851.Google Scholar

Seamon, LG, Bryant, SA, Rheaume, PS, et al. Comprehensive surgical staging for endometrial cancer in obese patients: comparing robotics and laparotomy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:16–21.Google Scholar

Gehrig, PA, Cantrell, LA, Shafer, A, et al. What is the optimal minimally invasive surgical procedure for endometrial cancer staging in the obese and morbidly obese woman? Gynecol Oncol 2008;111:41–45.Google Scholar

Sert, MB, Abeler, V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy: comparison with total laparoscopic hysterectomy and abdominal radical hysterectomy; one surgeon’s experience at the Norwegian Radium Hospital. Gynecol Oncol 2011;121:600–604.Google Scholar

Soliman, PT, Langley, G, Munsell, MF, et al. Analgesic and antiemetic requirements after minimally invasive surgery for early cervical cancer: a comparison between laparoscopy and robotic surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:1355–1359.Google Scholar

Cantrell, LA, Mendivil, A, Gehrig, PA, Boggess, JF. Survival outcomes for women undergoing type III robotic radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a 3-year experience. Gynecol Oncol 2010;117:260–265.Google Scholar

Ramirez, PT, Frumovitz, M, Pareja, R, et al. Phase III randomized trial of laparoscopic or robotic vs. abdominal radical hysterectomy in patients with early-stage cervical cancer: LACC Trial. SGO Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer. New Orleans, 24–27 March 2018.Google Scholar

Cardenas-Goicoechea, J, Wang, Y, McGorray, S, et al. Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 2018;13:23–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Closhen, D, Treiber, AH, Berres, M, et al. Robotic assisted prostatic surgery in the Trendelenburg position does not impair cerebral oxygenation measured using two different monitors: a clinical observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014;31:104e9.Google Scholar

Tomescu, DR, Popescu, M, Dima, SO, et al. Obesity is associated with decreased lung compliance and hypercapnia during robotic assisted surgery. J Clin Monit Comput 2017;31:85e92.Google Scholar

Phong, SV, Koh, LK. Anaesthesia for robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: considerations for laparoscopy in the Trendelenburg position. Anaesth Intensive Care 2007;35:281e5.Google Scholar

Bauer, EC, Koch, N, Janni, W, et al. Compartment syndrome after gynecologic operations: evidence from case reports and reviews. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;173:7e12.Google Scholar

Gainsburg, DM. Anesthetic concerns for robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Minerva Anestesiol 2012;78:596e604.Google Scholar

Backes, FJ, Brudie, LA, Farrell, MR, et al. Short- and long-term morbidity and outcomes after robotic surgery for comprehensive endometrial cancer staging. Gynecol Oncol 2012;125:546e51.Google Scholar

Park, DA, Yun, JE, Kim, SW, et al. Surgical and clinical safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy compared to conventional laparoscopy and laparotomy for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2016.07.017.Google Scholar

Chan, JK, Morrow, J, Manetta, A. Prevention of ureteral injuries in gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:1273e7.Google Scholar

Picerno, T, Sloan, NL, Escobar, P, et al. Bowel injury in robotic gynecologic surgery: risk factors and management options. A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:10e26.Google Scholar

Unger, CA, Lachiewicz, MP, Ridgeway, B. Risk factors for robotic gynecologic procedures requiring conversion to other surgical procedures. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;135:299e303.Google Scholar

Persson, J, Reynisson, P, Borgfeldt, C, et al. Robot assisted laparoscopic radical hysterectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy with short and long term morbidity data. Gynecol Oncol 2009;113:185e90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lavazzo, C, Gkegkes, ID. Port-site metastases in patients with gynecological cancer after robot-assisted operations. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;292:263e9.Google Scholar

Martinez, A, Querleu, D, Leblanc, E, et al. Low incidence of port-site metastases after laparoscopic staging of uterine cancer. Gynecol Oncol 2010;118:145e50.Google Scholar

Vetter, MH, Mutscheller, C, Cardenas-Goicoechea, J. Iatrogenic lower extremity subcutaneous emphysema after prolonged robotic-assisted hysterectomy. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol 2015;2015:860719.Google Scholar

Drudi, L, Press, JZ, Lau, S, et al. Vaginal vault dehiscence after robotic hysterectomy for gynecologic cancers: search for risk factors and literature review. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2013;23:943e50.Google Scholar

Tse, KY, Ngan, HYS, Lim, PC. Robot-assisted gynaecological cancer surgery-complications and prevention. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017;45:94–106.Google Scholar

Thubert, T, Foulot, H, Vinchant, M, et al. Surgical treatment: myomectomy and hysterectomy–endoscopy: a major advancement. Best Prac Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016;34:104–121.Google Scholar

Sinai Talaulikar, V. Medical therapy for fibroids: an overview. Best Prac Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2018;46:48–56.Google Scholar

Zepiridis, LI, Grimbizis, GF, Tarlatzis, BC. Infertility and uterine fibroids. Best Prac Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016;34:66–73.Google Scholar

Pritts, EA, Parker, WH, Olive, DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1215–1223.Google Scholar

Levesque, A, Riant, T, Ploteau, S, Rigaud, J, Labat, J-J. Clinical criteria of central sensitization in chronic pelvic and perineal pain (Convergences PP Criteria): elaboration of a clinical evaluation tool based on formal expert consensus. Pain Med 2018. doi:10.1093/pm/pny030.Google Scholar

Ludwin, A, Ludwin, I, Pityński, K, et al. Transrectal ultrasound-guided hysteroscopic myomectomy of submucosal myomas with a varying degree of myometrial penetration. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013;20:672–685.Google Scholar

Yang, J-H, Lin, B-L. Changes in myometrial thickness during hysteroscopic resection of deeply invasive submucous myomas. J Am Assoc Gynecologic Laparoscopists 2001;8:501–505.Google Scholar

Marret, H, Fritel, X, Ouldamer, L, et al. Therapeutic management of uterine fibroid tumors: updated French guidelines. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2012;165:156–164.Google Scholar

Lethaby, A, Vollenhoven, B, Sowter, MC Pre-operative GnRH analogue therapy before hysterectomy or myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000547.Google Scholar

Donnez, J, Tomaszewski, J, Vázquez, F, et al. Ulipristal acetate versus leuprolide acetate for uterine fibroids. N Engl J Med 2012;366:421–432.Google Scholar

Goldman, KN, Hirshfeld-Cytron, JE, Pavone, M-E, et al. Uterine artery embolization immediately preceding laparoscopic myomectomy. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012;116:105–108.Google Scholar

Dubuisson, J, Ramyead, L, Streuli, I. The role of preventive uterine artery occlusion during laparoscopic myomectomy: a review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;291:737–743.Google Scholar

Bhave Chittawar, P, Franik, S, Pouwer, AW, Farquhar, C. Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004638.pub3.Google Scholar

Shimanuki, H, Takeuchi, H, Kitade, M, et al. The effect of vasopressin on local and general circulation during laparoscopic surgery. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2006;13:190–194.Google Scholar

ten Broek, RPG, Stommel, MWJ, Strik, C, et al. Benefits and harms of adhesion barriers for abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2014;383:48–59.Google Scholar

Takeuchi, H, Kitade, M, Kikuchi, I, et al. Adhesion-prevention effects of fibrin sealants after laparoscopic myomectomy as determined by second-look laparoscopy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. J Reprod Med 2005;50:571–577.Google Scholar

Bosteels, J, Weyers, S, Puttemans, P, et al. The effectiveness of hysteroscopy in improving pregnancy rates in subfertile women without other gynaecological symptoms: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:1–11.Google Scholar

Polyzos, NP, Zavos, A, Valachis, A, et al. Misoprostol prior to hysteroscopy in premenopausal and post-menopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:393–404.Google Scholar

Haimovich, S, Mancebo, G, Alameda, F, et al. Feasibility of a new two-step procedure for office hysteroscopic resection of submucous myomas: results of a pilot study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;168:191–194.Google Scholar

Munro, MG. Hysteroscopic myomectomy of FIGO type 2 leiomyomas under local anesthesia: bipolar radiofrequency needle-based release followed by electromechanical morcellation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2016;23:12–13.Google Scholar

Hamerlynck, TWO, Dietz, V, Schoot, BC. Clinical implementation of the hysteroscopic morcellator for removal of intrauterine myomas and polyps: a retrospective descriptive study. Gynecolog Surg 2011;8:193–196.Google Scholar

Mazzon, I, Favilli, A, Grasso, M, et al. Predicting success of single step hysteroscopic myomectomy: a single centre large cohort study of single myomas. Int J Surg 2015;22:10–14.Google Scholar

Korkmazer, E, Tekin, B, Solak, N. Ultrasound guidance during hysteroscopic myomectomy in G1 and G2 submucous myomas: for a safer one step surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;203:108–111.Google Scholar

Wang, D, Wang, L, Wang, Y, Lin, X. Retracted: the efficiency and safety of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss in open myomectomy. Medicine 2017;96:e7072.Google Scholar

Altgassen, C, Kuss, S, Berger, U, et al. Complications in laparoscopic myomectomy. Surg Endoscopy 2006;20:614–618.Google Scholar

Bosteels, J, Weyers, S, Mol, BWJ, D’Hooghe, T. Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecolog Surg 2014;11:113–127.Google Scholar

Fauconnier, A. Recurrence of leiomyomata after myomectomy. Hum Reprod Update 2000;6:595–602.Google Scholar

Yoo, E-H, Lee, PI, Huh, C-Y, et al. Predictors of leiomyoma recurrence after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007;14:690–697.Google Scholar

Radosa, MP, Owsianowski, Z, Mothes, A, et al. Long-term risk of fibroid recurrence after laparoscopic myomectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;180:35–39.Google Scholar

Palomba, S, Zupi, E, Russo, T, et al. A multicenter randomized, controlled study comparing laparoscopic versus minilaparotomic myomectomy: short-term outcomes. Fertil Steril 2007;88:942–951.Google Scholar

Casini, ML, Rossi, F, Agostini, R, Unfer, V. Effects of the position of fibroids on fertility. Gynecolog Endocrinol 2006;22:106–109.Google Scholar

Parker, WH, Einarsson, J, Istre, O, Dubuisson, J-B. Risk factors for uterine rupture after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010;17:551–554.Google Scholar

Kumakiri, J, Takeuchi, H, Itoh, S, et al. Prospective evaluation for the feasibility and safety of vaginal birth after laparoscopic myomectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008;15:420–424.Google Scholar

Milazzo, GN, Catalano, A, Badia, V, Mallozzi, M, Caserta, D. Myoma and myomectomy: poor evidence concern in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2017;43:1789–1804.Google Scholar

Saccardi, C, Visentin, S, Noventa, M, et al. Uncertainties about laparoscopic myomectomy during pregnancy: a lack of evidence or an inherited misconception? A critical literature review starting from a peculiar case. Minim Invasiv Ther 2015;24:189–194.Google Scholar

Falcone, T, Walters, MD. Hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:753–767.Google Scholar

Neis, KJ, Zubke, W, Fehr, M, et al. Hysterectomy for benign uterine disease. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2016;113:242–249.Google Scholar

Moen, M. Hysterectomy for benign conditions of the uterus: total abdominal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2016;43:431–440.Google Scholar

Seiler, CM, Deckert, A, Diener, MK, et al. Midline versus transverse incision in major abdominal surgery: a randomized, double-blind equivalence trial (POVATI: ISRCTN60734227). Ann Surg 2009;249: 913–920.Google Scholar

Barr, J, Brayman, KL. Development and evolution of self-retaining retractors in surgery: the example of the Bookwalter retractor. J Am Coll Surg 2015;221:628–634.Google Scholar

Byrnes, JN, Occhino, JA. Hysterectomy for benign conditions of the uterus: total vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2016;43:441–462.Google Scholar

Committee on Gynecologic Practice. Committee opinion No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e155–e159.Google Scholar

Neis, KJ, Zubke, W, Romer, T, et al. Indications and route of hysterectomy for benign diseases: guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2016;76:350–364.Google Scholar

Clarke-Pearson, DL, Geller, EJ. Complications of hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:654–673.Google Scholar

Niblock, K, Bailie, E, McCracken, G, Johnston, K. Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse. Gynecol Surg 2017;14:3.Google Scholar

King, CR, Giles, D. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2016;43:463–478.Google Scholar

Simpson, KM, Advincula, AP. The essential elements of a robotic-assisted laparoscopic hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2016;43: 479–493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ramdhan, RC, Loukas, M, Tubbs, RS. Anatomical complications of hysterectomy: a review. Clin Anat 2017;30: 946–952.Google Scholar

Lonky, NM, Mohan, Y, Chiu, VY, et al. Hysterectomy for benign conditions: complications relative to surgical approach and other variables that lead to post-operative readmission within 90 days of surgery. Womens Health (Lond) 2017;13:17–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mytton, J, Evison, F, Chilton, PJ, Lilford, RJ. Removal of all ovarian tissue versus conserving ovarian tissue at time of hysterectomy in premenopausal patients with benign disease: study using routine data and data linkage. BMJ 2017;356:j372.Google Scholar

Evans, EC, Matteson, KA, Orejuela, FJ, et al. Salpingo-oophorectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:476–485.Google Scholar

Adelman, MR, Sharp, HT. Ovarian conservation vs removal at the time of benign hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:269–279.Google Scholar

Salvador, S, Scott, S, Francis, JA, Agrawal, A, Giede, C. No. 344: opportunistic salpingectomy and other methods of risk reduction for ovarian/fallopian tube/peritoneal cancer in the general population. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2017;39:480–493.Google Scholar

Hanley, GE, McAlpine, JN, Kwon, JS, Mitchell, G. Opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. Gynecol Oncol Res Pract 2015;2:5.Google Scholar

Kho, RM, Magrina, JF. Removal of the retained cervical stump after supracervical hysterectomy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2011;25: 153–156.Google Scholar

Andersen, LL, Ottesen, B, Alling Moller, LM, et al. Subtotal versus total abdominal hysterectomy: randomized clinical trial with 14-year questionnaire follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:758.e1–758.e54.Google Scholar

Andersen, LL, Zobbe, V, Ottesen, B, et al. Five-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial comparing subtotal with total abdominal hysterectomy. BJOG 2015;122:851–857Google Scholar

Sandberg, EM, Hehenkamp, WJK, Geomini, PM, et al. Laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign indications: clinical practice guideline. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;296: 597–606.Google Scholar

Bassetti, M, Righi, E, Astilean, A, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in minor and major surgery. Minerva Anestesiol 2015;81: 76–91.Google Scholar

Ayeleke, RO, Mourad, S, Marjoribanks, J, Calis, KA, Jordan, V. Antibiotic prophylaxis for elective hysterectomy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;6:CD004637.Google Scholar

Kahr, HS, Thorlacius-Ussing, O, Christiansen, OB, et al. Venous thromboembolic complications to hysterectomy for benign disease: a nationwide cohort study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2018;25:715–723.e2.Google Scholar

Brummer, TH, Heikkinen, A, Jalkanen, J, et al. Pharmaceutical thrombosis prophylaxis, bleeding complications and thromboembolism in a national cohort of hysterectomy for benign disease. Hum Reprod 2012;27:1628–1636.Google Scholar

Felder, S, Rasmussen, MS, King, R, et al. Prolonged thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin for abdominal or pelvic surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;11:CD004318.Google Scholar

Deffieux, X, Rochambeau, B, Chene, G, et al. Hysterectomy for benign disease: clinical practice guidelines from the French College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;202:83–91.Google Scholar

Aarts, JW, Nieboer, TE, Johnson, N, et al. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;8:CD003677Google Scholar

Sandberg, EM, Twijnstra, ARH, Driessen, SRC, Jansen, FW. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017;24:206–217.e22.Google Scholar

Schmitt, JJ, Carranza Leon, DA, Occhino, JA, et al. Determining optimal route of hysterectomy for benign indications: clinical decision tree algorithm. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129: 130–138.Google Scholar

ACOG. Committee opinion no. 750: perioperative pathways: enhanced recovery after surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:e120–e132.Google Scholar

Kalogera, E, Dowdy, SC. Enhanced recovery pathway in gynecologic surgery: improving outcomes through evidence-based medicine. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2016;43:551–573.Google Scholar

Steptoe, P. Laparoscopic tubal sterilization: a British viewpoint. IPPF Med Bull 1971;5:4.Google Scholar

Yoon, IB, Wheeless, CR Jr, King, TM. A preliminary report on a new laparoscopic sterilization approach: the silicone rubber band technique. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974;120:132–136.Google Scholar

Hulka, JF, Fishburne, JI, Mercer, JP, Omran, KF. Laparoscopic sterilization with a spring clip: a report of the first fifty cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;116:715–718.Google Scholar

Bartz, D, Greenberg, JA. Sterilization in the United States. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2008;1:23–32.Google Scholar

Hillis, SD, Marchbanks, PA, Tylor, LR, Peterson, HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:889–895.Google Scholar

Schmidt, JE, Hillis, SD, Marchbanks, PA, Jeng, G, Peterson, HB. Requesting information about and obtaining reversal after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Fertil Steril 2000;74:892–898.Google Scholar

Siegler, AM, Perez, RJ. Reconstruction of fallopian tubes in previously sterilized patients. Fertil Steril 1975;26:383–392.Google Scholar

Winston, RML. Reversal of sterilization. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1980;23:1261–1268.Google Scholar

Gomel, V. An odyssey through the oviduct. Fertil Steril 1983;39:144–156.Google Scholar

Gordts, S, Campo, R, Puttemans, P, Gordts, S. Clinical factors determining pregnancy outcome after microsurgical tubal reanastomosis. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1198–1202.Google Scholar

Donnez, J, Casanas-Roux, F, Ferin, J. Macroscopic and microscopic studies of fallopian tube after laparoscopic sterilization. Contraception 1979;20:497–509.Google Scholar

van Seeters, JAH, Chua, SJ, Mol, BWJ, Koks, CAM. Tubal anastomosis after previous sterilization: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2017;23:358–370.Google Scholar

Yoon, TK, Sung, HR, Kang, HG, et al. Laparoscopic tubal anastomosis: fertility outcome in 202 cases. Fertil Steril 1999;72:1121–1126.Google Scholar

Koh, CH, Janik, GM. Laparoscopic microsurgery: current and future status. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1999;11:401–407.Google Scholar

Dubuisson, JB, Chapron, C. Single suture laparoscopic tubal re-anastomosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1998;10:307–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Degueldre, M, Vandromme, J, Huong, PT, Cadiere, GB. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a feasibility study. Fertil Steril 2000;74:1020–1023.Google Scholar

Caillet, M, Vandromme, J, Rozenberg, S, et al. Robotically assisted laparoscopic microsurgical tubal reanastomosis: a retrospective study. Fertil Steril 2010;94:1844–1847.Google Scholar

Trimbos-Kemper, TC. Reversal of sterilization in women over 40 years of age: a multicenter survey in the Netherlands. Fertil Steril 1990;53:575–577.Google Scholar

Kim, SH, Shin, CJ, Kim, JG, et al. Microsurgical reversal of tubal sterilization: a report on 1,118 cases. Fertil Steril 1997;68:865–870.Google Scholar

Boeckx, W, Gordts, S, Buysse, K, Brosens, I. Reversibility after female sterilization. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1986;93:839–842.Google Scholar

Dubuisson, JB, Chapron, C, Nos, C, et al. Sterilization reversal: fertility results. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1145–1151.Google Scholar

Bergh, T, Ericson, A, Hillensjo, T, Nygren, KG, Wennerholm, UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999;354:1579–1585.Google Scholar

Chughtai, AA, Wang, AY, Hilder, L, et al. Gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rates for assisted reproductive technology (ART) and other births. Hum Reprod 2018;33:320–327.Google Scholar

de Ziegler, D, Pirtea, P, Poulain, M, Vanlieferinghen, S, Ayoubi, JM. Time to think about neonatal outcome in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2018;109:789–790.Google Scholar

Boeckxstaens, A, Devroey, P, Collins, J, Tournaye, H. Getting pregnant after tubal sterilization: surgical reversal or IVF? Hum Reprod 2007;22:2660–2664.Google Scholar

Messinger, LB, Alford, CE, Csokmay, JM, et al. Cost and efficacy comparison of in vitro fertilization and tubal anastomosis for women after tubal ligation. Fertil Steril 2015;104:32–38.Google Scholar

Trussell, J, Hatcher, RA, Cates, W, et al. Contraceptive failure in the United States: an update. Stud Fam Plann 1990;21:51–54.Google Scholar

Rungby, JA, Dahl, HB, Krogh, J, Kvist, E. [Vasectomy: who regrets it and why?]. Ugeskr Laeger 1994;156:2377–2380.Google Scholar

Dahm, F, Dahm, P, Dahm, J [Vasectomy today: a review of 1,275 vasectomies in 10 years]. Urologe A 2003;42:933–939.Google Scholar

Patel, AP, Smith, RP Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update. Asian J Androl 2016;18:365–371.Google Scholar

Valerie, U, De Brucker, S, De Brucker, M, et al. Pregnancy after vasectomy: surgical reversal or assisted reproduction? Hum Reprod 2018;33:1218–1227.Google Scholar

Dickey, RM, Pastuszak, AW, Hakky, TS, et al. The evolution of vasectomy reversal. Curr Urol Rep 2015;16:40.Google Scholar

Goldstein, M, Tanrikut, C. Microsurgical management of male infertility. Nat Clin Pract Urol 2006;3:381–391.Google Scholar

Gerrard, ER Jr, Sandlow, JI, Oster, RA, et al. Effect of female partner age on pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal. Fertil Steril 2007;87:1340–1344.Google Scholar

Hinz, S, Rais-Bahrami, S, Kempkensteffen, C, et al. Fertility rates following vasectomy reversal: importance of age of the female partner. Urol Int 2008;81:416–420.Google Scholar

Patel, AP, Smith, RP. Vasectomy reversal: a clinical update. Asian J Androl 2016;18:365–371.Google Scholar

Belker, AM, Thomas, AJ Jr., Fuchs, EF, Konnak, JW, Sharlip, ID. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. J Urol 1991;145:505–511.Google Scholar

Silber, SJ. Pregnancy after vasovasostomy for vasectomy reversal: a study of factors affecting long-term return of fertility in 282 patients followed for 10 years. Hum Reprod 1989;4:318–322.Google Scholar

Boorjian, S, Lipkin, M, Goldstein, M. The impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on outcome of vasectomy reversal. J Urol 2004;171:304–306.Google Scholar

Magheli, A, Rais-Bahrami, S, Kempkensteffen, C, et al. Impact of obstructive interval and sperm granuloma on patency and pregnancy after vasectomy reversal. Int J Androl 2010;33:730–735.Google Scholar

McMahon, AJ, Buckley, J, Taylor A, SN, et al. Chronic testicular pain following vasectomy. Br J Urol 1992;69:188–191.Google Scholar

Smith-Harrison, LI, Smith, RP. Vasectomy reversal for post-vasectomy pain syndrome. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6(Suppl 1):S10–S13.Google Scholar