Scott Eggener to Robotic Surgical Procedures
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Scott Eggener has written about Robotic Surgical Procedures.
Connection Strength
2.670
-
Randomized, Prospective Evaluation of Hemostatic Agents in Robotic-Assisted Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy. J Urol. 2026 05; 215(5):526-534.
Score: 0.578
-
Indications, evolving technique, and early outcomes with robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Curr Opin Urol. 2018 09; 28(5):461-468.
Score: 0.349
-
The Impact of Perioperative Aspirin on Bleeding Complications Following Robotic Partial Nephrectomy. J Endourol. 2016 09; 30(9):997-1003.
Score: 0.301
-
Safety and Early Oncologic Effectiveness of Primary Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Testicular Cancer. Eur Urol. 2017 03; 71(3):476-482.
Score: 0.298
-
Comparison of Perioperative and Early Oncologic Outcomes between Open and Robotic Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy in a Contemporary Population Based Cohort. J Urol. 2016 07; 196(1):76-81.
Score: 0.292
-
Population based analysis of incidence and predictors of open conversion during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2015 Mar; 193(3):826-31.
Score: 0.272
-
Robotic versus open post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection: a propensity score matched study across 11 academic medical centers. World J Urol. 2026 Aug 28; 44(1).
Score: 0.152
-
Oncological Outcomes Following Robotic Postchemotherapy Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection for Testicular Cancer: A Worldwide Multicenter Study. Eur Urol Focus. 2025 Mar; 11(2):266-272.
Score: 0.134
-
Robotic post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: A multicenter collaborative study. Urol Oncol. 2023 02; 41(2):111.e7-111.e14.
Score: 0.117
-
Recurrence After Robotic Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection Raises More Questions than Answers. Eur Urol. 2019 11; 76(5):610-611.
Score: 0.094
-
Nerve Bundle Hydrodissection and Sexual Function after Robot Prostatectomy. JSLS. 2017 Oct-Dec; 21(4).
Score: 0.082