284 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27981862)
1. Evaluation of a Novel Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope.
Dale J; Kaplan AG; Radvak D; Shin R; Ackerman A; Chen T; Scales CD; Ferrandino MN; Simmons WN; Preminger GM; Lipkin ME
J Endourol; 2021 Jun; 35(6):903-907. PubMed ID: 27981862
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. In Vitro Evaluation of Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Practical Comparison for a Patient-Centered Approach.
Marchini GS; Batagello CA; Monga M; Torricelli FCM; Vicentini FC; Danilovic A; Srougi M; Nahas WC; Mazzucchi E
J Endourol; 2018 Mar; 32(3):184-191. PubMed ID: 29239229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Next-Generation Single-Use Ureteroscopes: An In Vitro Comparison.
Tom WR; Wollin DA; Jiang R; Radvak D; Simmons WN; Preminger GM; Lipkin ME
J Endourol; 2017 Dec; 31(12):1301-1306. PubMed ID: 28978227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Benchtop Assessment of a New Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope.
Whelan P; Terry RS; Qi R; Ketterman B; Preminger GM; Lipkin ME
J Endourol; 2021 Jun; 35(6):755-760. PubMed ID: 33207957
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Avoiding a Lemon: Performance Consistency of Single-Use Ureteroscopes.
Winship B; Wollin D; Carlos E; Li J; Preminger GM; Lipkin ME
J Endourol; 2019 Feb; 33(2):127-131. PubMed ID: 30612445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis.
Hennessey DB; Fojecki GL; Papa NP; Lawrentschuk N; Bolton D
BJU Int; 2018 May; 121 Suppl 3():55-61. PubMed ID: 29656467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In vitro and in vivo comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor ureteroscope versus a standard fiberoptic ureteroscope.
Lusch A; Abdelshehid C; Hidas G; Osann KE; Okhunov Z; McDougall E; Landman J
J Endourol; 2013 Jul; 27(7):896-902. PubMed ID: 23402369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of New Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscope Versus Nondisposable Fiber Optic and Digital Ureteroscope in a Cadaveric Model.
Proietti S; Dragos L; Molina W; Doizi S; Giusti G; Traxer O
J Endourol; 2016 Jun; 30(6):655-9. PubMed ID: 27084572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparison of flexible ureteroscopes: deflection, irrigant flow and optical characteristics.
Abdelshehid C; Ahlering MT; Chou D; Park HK; Basillote J; Lee D; Kim I; Eichel L; Protsenko D; Wong B; McDougall E; Clayman RV
J Urol; 2005 Jun; 173(6):2017-21. PubMed ID: 15879808
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of optics and performance of single channel and a novel dual-channel fiberoptic ureteroscope.
Lusch A; Okhunov Z; del Junco M; Yoon R; Khanipour R; Menhadji A; Landman J
Urology; 2015 Jan; 85(1):268-72. PubMed ID: 25530400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an
Dragos LB; Somani BK; Keller EX; De Coninck VMJ; Herrero MR; Kamphuis GM; Bres-Niewada E; Sener ET; Doizi S; Wiseman OJ; Traxer O
Transl Androl Urol; 2019 Sep; 8(Suppl 4):S359-S370. PubMed ID: 31656742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of the Nanopulse Lithotripter to the Holmium Laser: Stone Fragmentation Efficiency and Impact on Flexible Ureteroscope Deflection and Flow.
Kaplan AG; Chen TT; Sankin G; Yang C; Dale JA; Simmons WN; Zhong P; Preminger GM; Lipkin ME
J Endourol; 2016 Nov; 30(11):1150-1154. PubMed ID: 27736195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Impressive Performance: New Disposable Digital Ureteroscope Allows for Extreme Lower Pole Access and Use of 365 μm Holmium Laser Fiber.
Leveillee RJ; Kelly EF
J Endourol Case Rep; 2016; 2(1):114-6. PubMed ID: 27579436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes.
Taguchi K; Usawachintachit M; Tzou DT; Sherer BA; Metzler I; Isaacson D; Stoller ML; Chi T
J Endourol; 2018 Apr; 32(4):267-273. PubMed ID: 29239227
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Do They Compare with Reusable Ureteroscopes?
Scotland KB; Chan JYH; Chew BH
J Endourol; 2019 Feb; 33(2):71-78. PubMed ID: 30612446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A dual-channel flexible ureteroscope: evaluation of deflection, flow, illumination, and optics.
Haberman K; Ortiz-Alvarado O; Chotikawanich E; Monga M
J Endourol; 2011 Sep; 25(9):1411-4. PubMed ID: 21797758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of a Novel Female Gender Flexible Ureteroscope: Comparison of Flow and Deflection to a Standard Flexible Ureteroscope.
Karani R; Arada RB; Ayad M; Xie L; Brevik A; Peta A; Jiang P; Patel RM; Landman J; Clayman RV
J Endourol; 2021 Jun; 35(6):840-846. PubMed ID: 33439772
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. In vitro comparison of a disposable flexible ureteroscope and conventional flexible ureteroscopes.
Boylu U; Oommen M; Thomas R; Lee BR
J Urol; 2009 Nov; 182(5):2347-51. PubMed ID: 19758626
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Ergonomics in Endourology: Measurement of Force for Deflection in Contemporary Ureteroscopes.
Teplitsky SL; Leong JY; Calio B; Hubosky SG; Bagley D
J Endourol; 2021 Feb; 35(2):215-220. PubMed ID: 32993396
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Prospective evaluation of flexible ureteroscopes with a novel evaluation tool.
Bell JR; Penniston KL; Best SL; Nakada SY
Can J Urol; 2017 Oct; 24(5):9004-9010. PubMed ID: 28971788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
