Comment on Stanford et al.: Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature
- PMID: 22790491
- DOI: 10.1007/s00192-012-1871-3
Comment on Stanford et al.: Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature
Comment in
-
Traditional native tissue vs mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature. Comment.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Jan;24(1):181-2. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1974-x. Int Urogynecol J. 2013. PMID: 23129248 No abstract available.
Comment on
-
Traditional native tissue versus mesh-augmented pelvic organ prolapse repairs: providing an accurate interpretation of current literature.Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Jan;23(1):19-28. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1584-z. Epub 2011 Nov 9. Int Urogynecol J. 2012. PMID: 22068321 Review.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
