196 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21167564)
1. Comparison of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic transperitoneal pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single-center study.
Bird VG; Leveillee RJ; Eldefrawy A; Bracho J; Aziz MS
Urology; 2011 Mar; 77(3):730-4. PubMed ID: 21167564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus robotic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a series of 60 cases performed by a single surgeon.
Hemal AK; Mukherjee S; Singh K
Can J Urol; 2010 Feb; 17(1):5012-6. PubMed ID: 20156381
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Technical aspects of laparoscopic robot-assisted pyeloplasty].
Ferhi K; Rouprêt M; Rode J; Misraï V; Lebeau T; Richard F; Vaessen C
Prog Urol; 2009 Oct; 19(9):606-10. PubMed ID: 19800549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey.
Freilich DA; Penna FJ; Nelson CP; Retik AB; Nguyen HT
J Urol; 2010 Feb; 183(2):704-8. PubMed ID: 20022046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Perioperative comparison of robotic assisted laparoendoscopic single-site (LESS) pyeloplasty versus conventional LESS pyeloplasty.
Olweny EO; Park SK; Tan YK; Gurbuz C; Cadeddu JA; Best SL
Eur Urol; 2012 Feb; 61(2):410-4. PubMed ID: 22036645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for secondary ureteropelvic junction obstruction.
Sundaram CP; Grubb RL; Rehman J; Yan Y; Chen C; Landman J; McDougall EM; Clayman RV
J Urol; 2003 Jun; 169(6):2037-40. PubMed ID: 12771713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty: review of the current literature, technique and outcome.
Singh I; Hemal AK
Can J Urol; 2010 Apr; 17(2):5099-108. PubMed ID: 20398449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in patients of ureteropelvic junction obstruction with previously failed open surgical repair.
Hemal AK; Mishra S; Mukharjee S; Suryavanshi M
Int J Urol; 2008 Aug; 15(8):744-6. PubMed ID: 18786197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Small incision combined with laparoscopy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction: comparison with retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Wu JT; Gao ZL; Shi L; Han BM; Men CP; Zhang P; Xia SJ
Chin Med J (Engl); 2009 Nov; 122(22):2728-32. PubMed ID: 19951604
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study.
Riachy E; Cost NG; Defoor WR; Reddy PP; Minevich EA; Noh PH
J Urol; 2013 Jan; 189(1):283-7. PubMed ID: 23174238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Minimally invasive surgical management of pelvic-ureteric junction obstruction: update on the current status of robotic-assisted pyeloplasty.
Uberoi J; Disick GI; Munver R
BJU Int; 2009 Dec; 104(11):1722-9. PubMed ID: 19519760
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair for failed pyeloplasty in children: a safe and highly effective treatment option.
Lindgren BW; Hagerty J; Meyer T; Cheng EY
J Urol; 2012 Sep; 188(3):932-7. PubMed ID: 22819409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Robot assisted pyeloplasty in the infant-lessons learned.
Kutikov A; Nguyen M; Guzzo T; Canter D; Casale P
J Urol; 2006 Nov; 176(5):2237-9; discussion 2239-40. PubMed ID: 17070302
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Robotic pyeloplasty: the University of California-Irvine experience.
Etafy M; Pick D; Said S; Hsueh T; Kerbl D; Mucksavage P; Louie M; McDougall E; Clayman R
J Urol; 2011 Jun; 185(6):2196-200. PubMed ID: 21497846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Laparoscopic versus robotic pyeloplasty: man versus machine.
Atalla MA; Dovey Z; Kavoussi LR
Expert Rev Med Devices; 2010 Jan; 7(1):27-34. PubMed ID: 20021233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty.
Patel V
Urology; 2005 Jul; 66(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 15992879
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Editorial comment on: Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate.
Novara G
Eur Urol; 2009 Nov; 56(5):857-8. PubMed ID: 19359085
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Robot assisted transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Jin XB; Li P; Jiang SB; Wang MW; Xia QH; Zhao Y; Xiong H; Sun P; Chen XD
Chin Med J (Engl); 2008 Feb; 121(4):380-2. PubMed ID: 18304474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
