134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15879812)
1. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction.
Clayman RV
J Urol; 2005 Jun; 173(6):2023. PubMed ID: 15879812
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Long-term follow-up for salvage laparoscopic pyeloplasty after failed open pyeloplasty.
Shapiro EY; Cho JS; Srinivasan A; Seideman CA; Huckabay CP; Andonian S; Lee BR; Richstone L; Kavoussi LR
Urology; 2009 Jan; 73(1):115-8. PubMed ID: 18950836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction.
Klingler HC; Remzi M; Janetschek G; Kratzik C; Marberger MJ
Eur Urol; 2003 Sep; 44(3):340-5. PubMed ID: 12932933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Our experience with retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction.
Davenport K; Minervini A; Timoney AG; Keeley FX
Eur Urol; 2005 Dec; 48(6):973-7. PubMed ID: 16171940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A comparison of open vs laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty using the pediatric health information system database--do benefits of laparoscopic approach recede at younger ages?
Tanaka ST; Grantham JA; Thomas JC; Adams MC; Brock JW; Pope JC
J Urol; 2008 Oct; 180(4):1479-85. PubMed ID: 18710777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Editorial comment. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study.
Thomas R
Urology; 2011 Mar; 77(3):734; author reply 734-5. PubMed ID: 21377020
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Retrospective comparison of retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Zhang X; Li HZ; Ma X; Zheng T; Lang B; Zhang J; Fu B; Xu K; Guo XL
J Urol; 2006 Sep; 176(3):1077-80. PubMed ID: 16890694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted versus open dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: intermediate results.
Tong Q; Zheng L; Tang S; Zeng F; Du Z; Mei H; Wu Z; Pu J; Ruan Q
Urology; 2009 Oct; 74(4):889-93. PubMed ID: 19628268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants and children: comparison with open surgery.
Piaggio LA; Franc-Guimond J; Noh PH; Wehry M; Figueroa TE; Barthold J; González R
J Urol; 2007 Oct; 178(4 Pt 2):1579-83. PubMed ID: 17707047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Outcome analysis and cost comparison between externalized pyeloureteral and standard stents in 470 consecutive open pyeloplasties.
Braga LH; Lorenzo AJ; Farhat WA; Bägli DJ; Khoury AE; Pippi Salle JL
J Urol; 2008 Oct; 180(4 Suppl):1693-8; discussion1698-9. PubMed ID: 18708220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in a horseshoe kidney.
Talug C; Perlmutter AE; Kumar T; Zaslau S; Tarry WF
Can J Urol; 2007 Dec; 14(6):3773-5. PubMed ID: 18163934
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Which is better--retroperitoneoscopic or laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty in children?
Canon SJ; Jayanthi VR; Lowe GJ
J Urol; 2007 Oct; 178(4 Pt 2):1791-5; discussion 1795. PubMed ID: 17707427
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Outpatient laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Rubinstein M; Finelli A; Moinzadeh A; Singh D; Ukimura O; Desai MM; Kaouk JH; Gill IS
Urology; 2005 Jul; 66(1):41-3; discussion 43-4. PubMed ID: 15992881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Initial comparison of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children.
Yee DS; Shanberg AM; Duel BP; Rodriguez E; Eichel L; Rajpoot D
Urology; 2006 Mar; 67(3):599-602. PubMed ID: 16504272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Bilateral dismembered laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty via a transperitoneal 4-port approach.
Schwab CW; Casale P
J Urol; 2005 Sep; 174(3):1091-3. PubMed ID: 16094066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty: experience with 50 cases.
Zhang X; Li HZ; Wang SG; Ma X; Zheng T; Fu B; Zhang J; Ye ZQ
Urology; 2005 Sep; 66(3):514-7. PubMed ID: 16140068
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus antegrade endopyelotomy: comparison in 100 patients and a new algorithm for the minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Ost MC; Kaye JD; Guttman MJ; Lee BR; Smith AD
Urology; 2005 Nov; 66(5 Suppl):47-51. PubMed ID: 16194707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the infant younger than 6 months--is it technically possible?
Kutikov A; Resnick M; Casale P
J Urol; 2006 Apr; 175(4):1477-9; discussion 1479. PubMed ID: 16516026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Minimally invasive treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: long-term experience with an algorithm for laser endopyelotomy and laparoscopic retroperitoneal pyeloplasty.
Rassweiler JJ; Subotic S; Feist-Schwenk M; Sugiono M; Schulze M; Teber D; Frede T
J Urol; 2007 Mar; 177(3):1000-5. PubMed ID: 17296396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Re: is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty?
Chang CM; Eden CG
J Urol; 2004 Dec; 172(6 Pt 1):2484-5; author reply 2485. PubMed ID: 15538301
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
