LeFort colpocleisis for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse

[1]  L. Rogo-Gupta,et al.  What Impacts the All Cause Risk of Reoperation after Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair? A Comparison of Mesh and Native Tissue Approaches in 110,329 Women , 2018, The Journal of urology.

[2]  J. Shepherd,et al.  Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage , 2017, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. , 2017, Minerva ginecologica.

[4]  K. Hua,et al.  Pelvic Symptoms, Body Image, and Regret after LeFort Colpocleisis: A Long-Term Follow-Up. , 2017, Journal of minimally invasive gynecology.

[5]  A. Cola,et al.  Risk factors for recurrence after hysterectomy plus native-tissue repair as primary treatment for genital prolapse , 2017, International Urogynecology Journal.

[6]  S. Swift,et al.  Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence: where are we now? , 2017, International Urogynecology Journal.

[7]  B. Tarlatzis,et al.  Enlightening the mechanisms of POP recurrence after LeFort colpocleisis. Case report and review , 2017, International Urogynecology Journal.

[8]  O. Sorinola,et al.  Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion , 2016, International Urogynecology Journal.

[9]  E. Costantini,et al.  Laparoscopic Management of Vaginal Vault Prolapse Recurring after Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery , 2016, Urologia Internationalis.

[10]  E. Ballard,et al.  Surgical management of recurrent upper vaginal prolapse following sacral colpopexy , 2015, International Urogynecology Journal.

[11]  S. Salvatore,et al.  Vaginal birth and pelvic floor dysfunction revisited: Can cesarean delivery be protective? , 2015, International Urogynecology Journal.

[12]  H. Mothes,et al.  Systematic assessment of surgical complications in 438 cases of vaginal native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse adopting Clavien–Dindo classification , 2015, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[13]  G. Badlani,et al.  Evidence-based outcomes for mesh-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse , 2014, Current opinion in urology.

[14]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Long-term outcomes of vaginal mesh versus native tissue repair for anterior vaginal wall prolapse , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.

[15]  D. Hale,et al.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus transvaginal mesh for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.

[16]  J. Deprest,et al.  International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related to native tissue female pelvic floor surgery , 2012, Neurourology and urodynamics.

[17]  K. Kenton,et al.  Obliterative Procedures for Pelvic Organ Prolapse , 2010, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[18]  L. Cardozo,et al.  Validation of the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse , 2010, International Urogynecology Journal.

[19]  J. Bena,et al.  Transobturator slings for stress incontinence: using urodynamic parameters to predict outcomes , 2007, International Urogynecology Journal.

[20]  M. Barber,et al.  Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). , 2005, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.