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.
111 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24313364)
1. Investigation of differences between nanosecond electropulse and electrohydraulic methods of lithotripsy: a comparative in vitro study of efficacy. Martov A; Gudkov A; Diamant V; Chepovetsky G; Lerner M J Endourol; 2014 Apr; 28(4):437-45. PubMed ID: 24313364 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparative in vitro study of the effectiveness of nanosecond electrical pulse and laser lithotripters. Martov A; Diamant V; Borisik A; Andronov A; Chernenko V J Endourol; 2013 Oct; 27(10):1287-96. PubMed ID: 23905871 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. [Comparative evaluation of efficacy of electropulse and laser lithotriptors in vitro]. Martov AG; Diamant VM; Borisik AV; Andronov AS; Dzhalilov DA Urologiia; 2013; (2):70-2, 74-8. PubMed ID: 23789368 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Transient oscillation of cavitation bubbles near stone surface during electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Zhong P; Tong HL; Cocks FH; Preminger GM J Endourol; 1997 Feb; 11(1):55-61. PubMed ID: 9048300 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A clinical comparison of an electrohydraulic and a piezoelectric shockwave lithotripter in gallstone therapy. Benninger J; Schneider HT; Hahn EG; Ell C Am J Gastroenterol; 1993 Jan; 88(1):58-63. PubMed ID: 8420275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In vitro fragmentation of gallstones: comparison of electrohydraulic, electromagnetic and piezoelectric shockwave lithotripters. Schneider HT; Fromm M; Ott R; Janowitz P; Swobodnik W; Neuhaus H; Ell C Hepatology; 1991 Aug; 14(2):301-5. PubMed ID: 1860686 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. In vitro comparisons of retropulsion and fragmentation efficacy of 2 cordless, handheld pneumatic and electromechanical lithotripsy devices. Khoder WY; Bader MJ; Haseke N; Stief CG; Baumgartl M; Pongratz T; Sroka R Urology; 2014 Apr; 83(4):726-31. PubMed ID: 24485360 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Electrohydraulic lithotripsy in 111 patients: a safe and effective therapy for difficult bile duct stones. Arya N; Nelles SE; Haber GB; Kim YI; Kortan PK Am J Gastroenterol; 2004 Dec; 99(12):2330-4. PubMed ID: 15571578 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Efficiency and efficacy of different intracorporeal ultrasonic lithotripsy units on a synthetic stone model. Liatsikos EN; Dinlenc CZ; Fogarty JD; Kapoor R; Bernardo NO; Smith AD J Endourol; 2001 Nov; 15(9):925-8. PubMed ID: 11769848 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Controlled, forced collapse of cavitation bubbles for improved stone fragmentation during shock wave lithotripsy. Zhong P; Cocks FH; Cioanta I; Preminger GM J Urol; 1997 Dec; 158(6):2323-8. PubMed ID: 9366384 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of gall stones: an in vitro comparison between an electrohydraulic and a piezoceramic device. Schachler R; Bird NC; Sauerbruch T; Frost EA; Sackmann M; Paumgartner G; Johnson AG Gut; 1991 Mar; 32(3):312-5. PubMed ID: 2013428 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]