126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24388725)
1. Editorial comment.
Cisek LJ
J Urol; 2014 Apr; 191(4):1096. PubMed ID: 24388725
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Editorial comment.
Hsieh MH
Urology; 2013 Mar; 81(3):538; discussion 539. PubMed ID: 23295134
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Editorial comment.
Koh CJ
J Urol; 2013 Dec; 190(6):2226-7. PubMed ID: 24050912
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Editorial comment.
DeCastro GJ
J Urol; 2012 Apr; 187(4):1398-9. PubMed ID: 22341286
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Editorial comment.
Penson DF
J Urol; 2012 Apr; 187(4):1398. PubMed ID: 22341284
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Editorial comment.
Farhat WA
J Urol; 2011 Apr; 185(4):1460. PubMed ID: 21334644
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Editorial comment.
Koh CJ
J Urol; 2013 Mar; 189(3):1086. PubMed ID: 23228521
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Editorial comment.
Kass EJ
J Urol; 2009 Nov; 182(5):2433; discussion 2434. PubMed ID: 19765767
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Editorial comment.
Castagnetti M
J Urol; 2009 Nov; 182(5):2432-3; discussion 2434. PubMed ID: 19765750
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Editorial comment.
Wolf JS
Urology; 2009 Nov; 74(5):1034; author reply 1034-5. PubMed ID: 19883815
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Reply by authors.
J Urol; 2013 Dec; 190(6):2227. PubMed ID: 24050905
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Editorial comment.
Hindley RG; Barber N
Urology; 2009 Nov; 74(5):1040; author reply 1041. PubMed ID: 19883816
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Early stent removal after pyeloplasty.
Boddy JL
BJU Int; 2014 Jun; 113(6):846-7. PubMed ID: 24905657
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Editorial comment.
Farhat WA
J Urol; 2011 Apr; 185(4):1467; author reply 1468. PubMed ID: 21334646
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Novel method for double-J stenting in retroperitoneal laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty.
Wu Z; Yu J; Qi F; Xu Y; Li Z; Qi L
Urology; 2011 Feb; 77(2):354-6. PubMed ID: 20708779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Editorial Comment.
McAleer IM
Urology; 2016 Apr; 90():110. PubMed ID: 27036680
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Robotically assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
Murphy D; Challacombe B; Elhage O; Khan MS; Dasgupta P
BJU Int; 2008 Jul; 102(1):136-51. PubMed ID: 18564236
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
