145 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23228521)
1. Editorial comment.
Koh CJ
J Urol; 2013 Mar; 189(3):1086. PubMed ID: 23228521
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Casella DP; Fox JA; Schneck FX; Cannon GM; Ost MC
J Urol; 2013 Mar; 189(3):1083-6. PubMed ID: 23017518
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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.
Fornara P; Greco F
Eur Urol; 2009 Nov; 56(5):858. PubMed ID: 19359090
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Editorial comment.
Schlussel R
J Urol; 2011 Oct; 186(4 Suppl):1667. PubMed ID: 21862069
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty.
Behan JW; Kim SS; Dorey F; De Filippo RE; Chang AY; Hardy BE; Koh CJ
J Urol; 2011 Oct; 186(4 Suppl):1663-7. PubMed ID: 21862079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Editorial comment.
Cisek LJ
J Urol; 2014 Apr; 191(4):1096. PubMed ID: 24388725
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Featuring: Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015.
Cardona-Grau D; Bayne CE
J Pediatr Urol; 2018 Jun; 14(3):210-211. PubMed ID: 29958639
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Editorial comment.
Lendvay TS; Akhavan A
J Urol; 2013 Oct; 190(4 Suppl):1626-7. PubMed ID: 23791988
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Robotic Pyeloplasty.
Bergersen A; Thomas R; Lee BR
J Endourol; 2018 May; 32(S1):S68-S72. PubMed ID: 29774814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Technology Based Treatment for UreteroPelvic Junction Obstruction.
Lai WR; Stewart CA; Thomas R
J Endourol; 2017 Apr; 31(S1):S59-S63. PubMed ID: 27549028
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Editorial comment.
Farhat WA
J Urol; 2011 Apr; 185(4):1460. PubMed ID: 21334644
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Editorial comment.
Turna B; Stein RJ
Urology; 2012 Mar; 79(3):694. PubMed ID: 22386424
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. What is the role of innovative minimally invasive surgery in today's medicine?
Toglia MR
Int Urogynecol J; 2012 Sep; 23(9):1175-6. PubMed ID: 22282230
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Re: transition from open to robotic-assisted pediatric pyeloplasty: a feasibility and outcome study.
Canning DA
J Urol; 2013 Aug; 190(2):696. PubMed ID: 23845373
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. National trends of perioperative outcomes and costs for open, laparoscopic and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty.
Varda BK; Johnson EK; Clark C; Chung BI; Nelson CP; Chang SL
J Urol; 2014 Apr; 191(4):1090-5. PubMed ID: 24513164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Editorial comment.
McAleer IM
J Urol; 2013 Oct; 190(4 Suppl):1473. PubMed ID: 23791989
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Editorial comment.
Kaplan GW
Urology; 2012 Dec; 80(6):1360. PubMed ID: 23102444
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Recent advances in urologic surgical techniques for pyeloplasty.
Mendrek M; Vögeli TA; Bach C
F1000Res; 2019; 8():. PubMed ID: 30906534
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Laparoscopic reoperative pediatric pyeloplasty with robotic assistance.
Passerotti CC; Nguyen HT; Eisner BH; Lee RS; Peters CA
J Endourol; 2007 Oct; 21(10):1137-40. PubMed ID: 17949311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
