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.
3. 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]
4. Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope? Göger YE; Özkent MS; Kılınç MT; Taşkapu HH; Göger E; Aydın A; Sönmez MG; Karalezli G World J Urol; 2021 Sep; 39(9):3643-3650. PubMed ID: 33738574 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Steep Infundibulopelvic Angle as a New Risk Factor for Flexible Ureteroscope Damage and Complicated Postoperative Course. Ozimek T; Cordes J; Wiessmeyer JR; Schneider MH; Hupe MC; Gilbert N; Merseburger AS; Kramer MW J Endourol; 2018 Jul; 32(7):597-602. PubMed ID: 29737199 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical comparative study of single-use and reusable digital flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of lower pole stones: a retrospective case-controlled study. Jing Q; Liu F; Yuan X; Zhang X; Cao X BMC Urol; 2024 Jul; 24(1):149. PubMed ID: 39026274 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
9. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. Koo V; Young M; Thompson T; Duggan B BJU Int; 2011 Dec; 108(11):1913-6. PubMed ID: 21453346 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Laser fibre, rather than the stone, may harm the scope: retrospective monocentric analysis of 26 pre- and intraoperative factors of flexible ureteroscope (fURS) damage. Ozimek T; Cordes J; Gilbert N; Hupe MC; Wiessmeyer JR; Schneider MH; Merseburger AS; Kramer MW World J Urol; 2020 Aug; 38(8):2035-2040. PubMed ID: 31659464 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. First clinical evaluation of a new single-use flexible ureteroscope (LithoVue™): a European prospective multicentric feasibility study. Doizi S; Kamphuis G; Giusti G; Andreassen KH; Knoll T; Osther PJ; Scoffone C; Pérez-Fentes D; Proietti S; Wiseman O; de la Rosette J; Traxer O World J Urol; 2017 May; 35(5):809-818. PubMed ID: 27671898 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Comparison of Surgical Outcomes between Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Jun DY; Cho KS; Jeong JY; Moon YJ; Kang DH; Jung HD; Lee JY Medicina (Kaunas); 2022 Oct; 58(10):. PubMed ID: 36295549 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Flexible ureteroscopy: reuse? Or is single use the new direction? Ventimiglia E; Somani BK; Traxer O Curr Opin Urol; 2020 Mar; 30(2):113-119. PubMed ID: 31815748 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Somani BK; Al-Qahtani SM; de Medina SD; Traxer O Urology; 2013 Nov; 82(5):1017-9. PubMed ID: 24001703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Primary SWL Is an Efficient and Cost-Effective Treatment for Lower Pole Renal Stones Between 10 and 20 mm in Size: A Large Single Center Study. Chan LH; Good DW; Laing K; Phipps S; Thomas BG; Keanie JY; Tolley DA; Cutress ML J Endourol; 2017 May; 31(5):510-516. PubMed ID: 28355100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system's anatomy. Jessen JP; Honeck P; Knoll T; Wendt-Nordahl G J Endourol; 2014 Feb; 28(2):146-51. PubMed ID: 24083332 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of the Efficacy of Ultra-Mini PCNL, Flexible Ureteroscopy, and Shock Wave Lithotripsy on the Treatment of 1-2 cm Lower Pole Renal Calculi. Zhang H; Hong TY; Li G; Jiang N; Hu C; Cui X; Chu C; Zhao JL Urol Int; 2019; 102(2):153-159. PubMed ID: 30352443 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]