These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15134958)

  • 1. Systematic evaluation of ureteral access sheaths.
    Monga M; Gawlik A; Durfee W
    Urology; 2004 May; 63(5):834-6. PubMed ID: 15134958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Physical characteristics of next-generation ureteral access sheaths: buckling and kinking.
    Pedro RN; Hendlin K; Durfee WK; Monga M
    Urology; 2007 Sep; 70(3):440-2. PubMed ID: 17905092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Prospective randomized comparison of 2 ureteral access sheaths during flexible retrograde ureteroscopy.
    Monga M; Best S; Venkatesh R; Ames C; Lieber D; Vanlangendock R; Landman J
    J Urol; 2004 Aug; 172(2):572-3. PubMed ID: 15247733
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Is there a role for small-diameter ureteral access sheaths? Impact on irrigant flow and intrapelvic pressures.
    Monga M; Bodie J; Ercole B
    Urology; 2004 Sep; 64(3):439-41; discussion 441-2. PubMed ID: 15351562
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Ureteral access sheaths: a comprehensive comparison of physical and mechanical properties.
    Patel N; Monga M
    Int Braz J Urol; 2018; 44(3):524-535. PubMed ID: 29493185
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. New ureteral access sheaths: a double standard.
    De S; Sarkissian C; Torricelli FC; Brown R; Monga M
    Urology; 2015 Apr; 85(4):757-63. PubMed ID: 25661780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of a novel radially dilating balloon ureteral access sheath to a conventional sheath in the porcine model.
    Harper JD; Ebrahimi KY; Auge BK; Lamberton GR; Pham AK; Zuppan C; Albala DM; Preminger GM; Baldwin DD
    J Urol; 2008 May; 179(5):2042-5. PubMed ID: 18355865
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Construction-related differences seen in ureteral access sheaths: comparison of reinforced versus nonreinforced ureteral access sheaths.
    Shields JM; Tunuguntla HS; Bhalani VK; Ayyathurai R; Bird VG
    Urology; 2009 Feb; 73(2):241-4. PubMed ID: 18845320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Ureteral access sheath insertion forces: implications for design and training.
    Pedro RN; Weiland D; Reardon S; Monga M
    Urol Res; 2007 Apr; 35(2):107-9. PubMed ID: 17393197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The effect of extralumenal safety wires on ureteral injury and insertion force of ureteral access sheaths: evaluation using an ex vivo porcine model.
    Graversen JA; Valderrama OM; Korets R; Mues AC; Landman J; Badani KK; Gupta M
    Urology; 2012 May; 79(5):1011-4. PubMed ID: 22245301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. The argument against the routine use of ureteral access sheaths.
    Abrahams HM; Stoller ML
    Urol Clin North Am; 2004 Feb; 31(1):83-7. PubMed ID: 15040404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Single-center clinical comparison of two reinforced ureteral access sheaths for retrograde ureteroscopic treatment of urinary lithiasis.
    Ayyathurai R; Kanagarajah P; Shields J; Young E; Alvarez A; Bird VG
    Int Urol Nephrol; 2012 Apr; 44(2):409-14. PubMed ID: 21706214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Characterization of intrapelvic pressure during ureteropyeloscopy with ureteral access sheaths.
    Rehman J; Monga M; Landman J; Lee DI; Felfela T; Conradie MC; Srinivas R; Sundaram CP; Clayman RV
    Urology; 2003 Apr; 61(4):713-8. PubMed ID: 12670551
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: 'size does matter'--increased ureteric access sheath use!
    Bach C; Nesar S; Kumar P; Goyal A; Kachrilas S; Papatsoris A; Masood J; Buchholz N
    Urol Int; 2012; 89(4):408-11. PubMed ID: 22964494
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparative experimental evaluation of guidewire use in urology.
    Liguori G; Antoniolli F; Trombetta C; Biasotto M; Amodeo A; Pomara G; Bucci S; Belgrano E
    Urology; 2008 Aug; 72(2):286-9; discussion 289-90. PubMed ID: 18407332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Irrigant flow and intrarenal pressure during flexible ureteroscopy: the effect of different access sheaths, working channel instruments, and hydrostatic pressure.
    Ng YH; Somani BK; Dennison A; Kata SG; Nabi G; Brown S
    J Endourol; 2010 Dec; 24(12):1915-20. PubMed ID: 21067276
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Systematic evaluation of hybrid guidewires: shaft stiffness, lubricity, and tip configuration.
    Sarkissian C; Korman E; Hendlin K; Monga M
    Urology; 2012 Mar; 79(3):513-7. PubMed ID: 22173176
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Ureteral access sheath for the management of pediatric renal and ureteral stones: a single center experience.
    Singh A; Shah G; Young J; Sheridan M; Haas G; Upadhyay J
    J Urol; 2006 Mar; 175(3 Pt 1):1080-2; discussion 1082. PubMed ID: 16469623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Measurement of air emboli during central venous access: do "protective" sheaths or insertion techniques matter?
    Kolbeck KJ; Itkin M; Stavropoulos SW; Trerotola SO
    J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2005 Jan; 16(1):89-99. PubMed ID: 15640415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Aerostasis during central venous access: updates in protective sheaths.
    Kolbeck KJ; Stavropoulos SW; Trerotola SO
    J Vasc Interv Radiol; 2006 Jul; 17(7):1155-63. PubMed ID: 16868169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.