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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31989208)

  • 21. In vitro fragmentation efficiency of holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (YAG) laser lithotripsy--a comprehensive study encompassing different frequencies, pulse energies, total power levels and laser fibre diameters.
    Kronenberg P; Traxer O
    BJU Int; 2014 Aug; 114(2):261-7. PubMed ID: 24219145
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Erbium: YAG versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy.
    Teichman JM; Chan KF; Cecconi PP; Corbin NS; Kamerer AD; Glickman RD; Welch AJ
    J Urol; 2001 Mar; 165(3):876-9. PubMed ID: 11176490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Vaporizing Effect of the Popcorn Technique for Laser Lithotripsy: Comparing the Different Settings of High Energy in a Caliceal Model.
    Jongjitaree K; Chotikawanich E
    J Endourol; 2019 Oct; 33(10):809-813. PubMed ID: 31418300
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Dusting efficacy between the regular setting of holmium laser (Ho:YAG) versus Vapor Tunnel pulse modality for non-complex kidney stones.
    Rico L; Contreras P; Blas L; Butori S; Martinez E; Proietti S; Giusti G; Ameri C
    Lasers Med Sci; 2023 Jul; 38(1):168. PubMed ID: 37501040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Prediction models of low-power holmium laser effectiveness in renal stone lithotripsy during retrograde intrarenal surgery.
    Marques-Pinto A; Santos-Reis C; Castanheira de Oliveira M; Fraga A; Cavadas V
    Lasers Med Sci; 2022 Apr; 37(3):1873-1880. PubMed ID: 34689278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. High power holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser treatment of kidney stones in dusting mode: ablation rate and fragment size studies.
    Hardy LA; Vinnichenko V; Fried NM
    Lasers Surg Med; 2019 Aug; 51(6):522-530. PubMed ID: 30648761
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Comparison of low power and high power holmium YAG laser settings in flexible ureteroscopy.
    Shrestha A; Corrales M; Adhikari B; Chapagain A; Traxer O
    World J Urol; 2022 Jul; 40(7):1839-1844. PubMed ID: 35633401
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: an in vitro analysis of stone fragmentation using a modulated 110-watt Thulium fiber laser at 1.94 microm.
    Fried NM
    Lasers Surg Med; 2005 Jul; 37(1):53-8. PubMed ID: 15971236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Holmium: YAG lithotripsy: photothermal mechanism.
    Vassar GJ; Chan KF; Teichman JM; Glickman RD; Weintraub ST; Pfefer TJ; Welch AJ
    J Endourol; 1999 Apr; 13(3):181-90. PubMed ID: 10360498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Impact of pulse duration on Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy: treatment aspects on the single-pulse level.
    Sroka R; Pongratz T; Scheib G; Khoder W; Stief CG; Herrmann T; Nagele U; Bader MJ
    World J Urol; 2015 Apr; 33(4):479-85. PubMed ID: 25712309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Enhanced thulium fiber laser lithotripsy using micro-pulse train modulation.
    Blackmon RL; Irby PB; Fried NM
    J Biomed Opt; 2012 Feb; 17(2):028002. PubMed ID: 22463050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Determinants of holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser time and energy during ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy.
    Molina WR; Marchini GS; Pompeo A; Sehrt D; Kim FJ; Monga M
    Urology; 2014 Apr; 83(4):738-44. PubMed ID: 24486000
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Comparison of the ablation rates, fissures and fragments produced with 150 µm and 272 µm laser fibers with superpulsed thulium fiber laser: an in vitro study.
    Panthier F; Doizi S; Lapouge P; Chaussain C; Kogane N; Berthe L; Traxer O
    World J Urol; 2021 Jun; 39(6):1683-1691. PubMed ID: 32253581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. How Lasers Ablate Stones:
    Taratkin M; Laukhtina E; Singla N; Tarasov A; Alekseeva T; Enikeev M; Enikeev D
    J Endourol; 2021 Jun; 35(6):931-936. PubMed ID: 31885281
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Initial clinical experience with the pulsed solid-state thulium YAG laser from Dornier during RIRS: first 25 cases.
    Panthier F; Solano C; Chicaud M; Kutchukian S; Candela L; Doizi S; Corrales M; Traxer O
    World J Urol; 2023 Aug; 41(8):2119-2125. PubMed ID: 37414942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Ho: YaG laser lithotripsy: recent innovations.
    Becker B; Gross AJ; Netsch C
    Curr Opin Urol; 2019 Mar; 29(2):103-107. PubMed ID: 30407221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy in non-contact mode: optimization of fiber to stone working distance to improve ablation efficiency.
    De Coninck V; Keller EX; Chiron P; Dragos L; Emiliani E; Doizi S; Berthe L; Traxer O
    World J Urol; 2019 Sep; 37(9):1933-1939. PubMed ID: 30511211
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Effect of holmium:YAG laser pulse width on lithotripsy retropulsion in vitro.
    Finley DS; Petersen J; Abdelshehid C; Ahlering M; Chou D; Borin J; Eichel L; McDougall E; Clayman RV
    J Endourol; 2005 Oct; 19(8):1041-4. PubMed ID: 16253078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. In vitro investigations of propulsion during laser lithotripsy using video tracking.
    Eisel M; Ströbl S; Pongratz T; Strittmatter F; Sroka R
    Lasers Surg Med; 2018 Apr; 50(4):333-339. PubMed ID: 29266385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. How do we assess the efficacy of Ho:YAG low-power laser lithotripsy for the treatment of upper tract urinary stones? Introducing the Joules/mm
    Ventimiglia E; Pauchard F; Gorgen ARH; Panthier F; Doizi S; Traxer O
    World J Urol; 2021 Mar; 39(3):891-896. PubMed ID: 32462304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 13.