184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29433993)
1. Scar acceptance after pediatric urologic surgery.
Wang MK; Li Y; Selekman RE; Gaither T; Arnhym A; Baskin LS
J Pediatr Urol; 2018 Apr; 14(2):175.e1-175.e6. PubMed ID: 29433993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Parent and patient perceptions of robotic vs open urological surgery scars in children.
Barbosa JA; Barayan G; Gridley CM; Sanchez DC; Passerotti CC; Houck CS; Nguyen HT
J Urol; 2013 Jul; 190(1):244-50. PubMed ID: 23276511
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of Cosmetic Results in Children >10 Years Old Undergoing Open, Laparoscopic or Robotic-Assisted Pyeloplasty: A Multicentric Study.
Ghidini F; Bortot G; Gnech M; Contini G; Escolino M; Esposito C; Capozza N; Berrettini A; Masieri L; Castagnetti M
J Urol; 2022 May; 207(5):1118-1126. PubMed ID: 34968145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Failed pyeloplasty in children: Is robot-assisted laparoscopic reoperative repair feasible?
Asensio M; Gander R; Royo GF; Lloret J
J Pediatr Urol; 2015 Apr; 11(2):69.e1-6. PubMed ID: 25791423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Robotic surgery start-up with a fellow as the console surgeon.
Reinhardt S; Ifaoui IB; Thorup J
Scand J Urol; 2017 Aug; 51(4):335-338. PubMed ID: 28398104
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Does a High-Quality Scar Overcome its Length? Italian Validation of the SCAR-Q Questionnaire.
Salzillo R; Barone M; Persichetti P
Aesthetic Plast Surg; 2023 Oct; 47(5):2209-2210. PubMed ID: 37253844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Parental satisfaction after open versus robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: results from modified Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory Survey.
Freilich DA; Penna FJ; Nelson CP; Retik AB; Nguyen HT
J Urol; 2010 Feb; 183(2):704-8. PubMed ID: 20022046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Scar Assessment After Breast Augmentation Surgery with Axillary Incision versus Inframammary Fold Incision: Long-Term Follow-Up in Chinese Patients.
Sun J; Mu D; Liu C; Ji K; Chen L; Liu W; Luan J
Aesthetic Plast Surg; 2016 Oct; 40(5):699-706. PubMed ID: 27484988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative study for evaluating the cosmetic outcome of small-incision access retroperitoneoscopic technique (SMART) with standard retroperitoneoscopy using the Observer Scar Assessment Scale: are small incisions a big deal?
Al Nasser M; Pini G; Gözen AS; Elashry OM; Akin Y; Klein J; Almouhissen T; Rassweiler J
J Endourol; 2014 Dec; 28(12):1409-13. PubMed ID: 25230126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Laparoendoscopic single-site surgery (LESS) for the treatment of different urologic pathologies in pediatrics: single-center single-surgeon experience.
Abdel-Karim AM; Elmissery M; Elsalmy S; Moussa A; Aboelfotoh A
J Pediatr Urol; 2015 Feb; 11(1):33.e1-7. PubMed ID: 25459388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): technical considerations and results.
Esposito C; Masieri L; Castagnetti M; Sforza S; Farina A; Cerulo M; Cini C; Del Conte F; Escolino M
J Pediatr Urol; 2019 Dec; 15(6):667.e1-667.e8. PubMed ID: 31734119
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Human capital gains associated with robotic assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children compared to open pyeloplasty.
Behan JW; Kim SS; Dorey F; De Filippo RE; Chang AY; Hardy BE; Koh CJ
J Urol; 2011 Oct; 186(4 Suppl):1663-7. PubMed ID: 21862079
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Objective pain assessment after ureteral reimplantation: comparison of open versus robotic approach.
Harel M; Herbst KW; Silvis R; Makari JH; Ferrer FA; Kim C
J Pediatr Urol; 2015 Apr; 11(2):82.e1-8. PubMed ID: 25864615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Is peri-operative urethral catheter drainage enough? The case for stentless pediatric robotic pyeloplasty.
Silva MV; Levy AC; Finkelstein JB; Van Batavia JP; Casale P
J Pediatr Urol; 2015 Aug; 11(4):175.e1-5. PubMed ID: 26189590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Transition from open to robotic-assisted pediatric pyeloplasty: a feasibility and outcome study.
O'Brien ST; Shukla AR
J Pediatr Urol; 2012 Jun; 8(3):276-81. PubMed ID: 21616719
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Outcomes of complex robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation in the pediatric population.
Arlen AM; Broderick KM; Travers C; Smith EA; Elmore JM; Kirsch AJ
J Pediatr Urol; 2016 Jun; 12(3):169.e1-6. PubMed ID: 26747012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of the Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty Between Senior and Junior Surgeons.
Spampinato G; Binet A; Fourcade L; Mendoza Sagaon M; Villemagne T; Braik K; Grosos C; Lardy H; Ballouhey Q
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2021 Apr; 31(4):478-483. PubMed ID: 33651635
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Minimal incision laparoscopy assisted open pediatric pyeloplasty.
Woo JR; Marietti S; Masterson J; Chiang G
J Pediatr Urol; 2014 Apr; 10(2):391-3. PubMed ID: 23958175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cosmetic outcomes following appendectomy in children: a comparison of surgical techniques.
Chandler NM; Ghazarian SR; King TM; Danielson PD
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2014 Aug; 24(8):584-8. PubMed ID: 25062342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Minilaparoscopic Versus Open Pyeloplasty in Children Less Than 1 Year.
Masieri L; Sforza S; Cini C; Escolino M; Grosso A; Esposito C; Minervini A; Carini M
J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A; 2019 Jul; 29(7):970-975. PubMed ID: 31211649
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
