259 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28830223)
1. Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.
Isaacson D; Ahmad T; Metzler I; Tzou DT; Taguchi K; Usawachintachit M; Zetumer S; Sherer B; Stoller M; Chi T
J Endourol; 2017 Oct; 31(10):1026-1031. PubMed ID: 28830223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Martin CJ; McAdams SB; Abdul-Muhsin H; Lim VM; Nunez-Nateras R; Tyson MD; Humphreys MR
J Urol; 2017 Mar; 197(3 Pt 1):730-735. PubMed ID: 27693449
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs.
Semins MJ; George S; Allaf ME; Matlaga BR
J Endourol; 2009 Jun; 23(6):903-5. PubMed ID: 19445639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. [Cost comparison of two reprocessing procedures of flexible ureteroscopes at the University Hospital of Dijon].
Muggeo E; Boissel A; Martin L; Sgro C; Michiels C
Prog Urol; 2015 May; 25(6):318-24. PubMed ID: 25775971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cost Analysis of Flexible Ureteroscope Repairs: Evaluation of 655 Procedures in a Community-Based Practice.
Kramolowsky E; McDowell Z; Moore B; Booth B; Wood N
J Endourol; 2016 Mar; 30(3):254-6. PubMed ID: 26542761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of single-use flexible ureteroscopes with a reusable ureteroscope for the management of paediatric urolithiasis.
Mille E; El-Khoury E; Haddad M; Pinol J; Charbonnier M; Gastaldi P; Dariel A; Merrot T; Faure A
J Pediatr Urol; 2023 Jun; 19(3):248.e1-248.e6. PubMed ID: 36746718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative medico-economic study of reusable vs. single-use flexible ureteroscopes.
Al-Balushi K; Martin N; Loubon H; Baboudjian M; Michel F; Sichez PC; Martin T; Di-Crocco E; Gaillet S; Delaporte V; Akiki A; Faure A; Karsenty G; Lechevallier E; Boissier R
Int Urol Nephrol; 2019 Oct; 51(10):1735-1741. PubMed ID: 31317310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Editorial Comment on: Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity Based Costing by Isaacson et al. (From: Isaacson D, Ahmad T, Metzler, I, et al. J Endourol 2017;31:1026-1031).
Matlaga BR
J Endourol; 2017 Dec; 31(12):1342. PubMed ID: 29048204
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study.
Mager R; Kurosch M; Höfner T; Frees S; Haferkamp A; Neisius A
Urolithiasis; 2018 Nov; 46(6):587-593. PubMed ID: 29356873
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. Carbon Footprint in Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Comparative Study on the Environmental Impact of Reusable and Single-Use Ureteroscopes.
Davis NF; McGrath S; Quinlan M; Jack G; Lawrentschuk N; Bolton DM
J Endourol; 2018 Mar; 32(3):214-217. PubMed ID: 29373918
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Prospective evaluation of refurbished flexible ureteroscope durability seen in a large public tertiary care center with multiple surgeons.
Carey RI; Martin CJ; Knego JR
Urology; 2014 Jul; 84(1):42-5. PubMed ID: 24837456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Reprocessing Effectiveness for Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Critical Look at the Evidence.
Ofstead CL; Hopkins KM; Smart AG; Eiland JE; Wetzler HP; Bechis SK
Urology; 2022 Jun; 164():25-32. PubMed ID: 35123986
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.
Marchini GS; Torricelli FC; Batagello CA; Monga M; Vicentini FC; Danilovic A; Srougi M; Nahas WC; Mazzucchi E
Int Braz J Urol; 2019; 45(4):658-670. PubMed ID: 31397987
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: A prospective comparative study.
Kam J; Yuminaga Y; Beattie K; Ling KY; Arianayagam M; Canagasingham B; Ferguson R; Varol C; Khadra M; Winter M; Ko R
Int J Urol; 2019 Oct; 26(10):999-1005. PubMed ID: 31448473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comprehensive Costs Associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital.
Borofsky MS; Dauw CA; York NE; Hoovler C; Lingeman JE
Urol Pract; 2017 May; 4(3):187-192. PubMed ID: 37592634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: A real-world study.
Ofstead CL; Heymann OL; Quick MR; Johnson EA; Eiland JE; Wetzler HP
Am J Infect Control; 2017 Aug; 45(8):888-895. PubMed ID: 28625700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center.
Carey RI; Gomez CS; Maurici G; Lynne CM; Leveillee RJ; Bird VG
J Urol; 2006 Aug; 176(2):607-10; discussion 610. PubMed ID: 16813899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
