179 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34235971)
1. Evolution of Single-Use Urologic Endoscopy: Benchtop and Initial Clinical Assessment of a New Single-Use Flexible Cystoscope.
Whelan P; Kim C; Tabib C; Preminger GM; Lipkin ME
J Endourol; 2022 Jan; 36(1):13-21. PubMed ID: 34235971
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Time Efficiency and Performance of Single-Use
Chen R; Baas C; Farkouh A; Shete K; Peverini DR; Hartman JC; Amasyali AS; Belle J; Baldwin EA; Baldwin DD
J Endourol; 2024 Jan; 38(1):53-59. PubMed ID: 37800857
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Clinical Utility of a Single-Use Flexible Cystoscope Compared with a Standard Reusable Device: A Randomized Noninferiority Study.
Holmes A; O'Kane D; Wombwell A; Grills R
J Endourol; 2023 Jan; 37(1):80-84. PubMed ID: 36128833
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Cost and Environmental Impact of Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes Compared to Reusable Devices.
Boucheron T; Lechevallier E; Gondran-Tellier B; Michel F; Bastide C; Martin N; Baboudjian M
J Endourol; 2022 Oct; 36(10):1317-1321. PubMed ID: 35703325
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes.
Hogan D; Rauf H; Kinnear N; Hennessey DB
J Endourol; 2022 Nov; 36(11):1460-1464. PubMed ID: 35607858
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of a Single-Use Flexible Cystoscope: A Multi-Institutional International Study.
Scotland K; Wong VKF; Chan JYH; Tawfiek E; Chiura A; Chew BH; Bagley D
J Endourol; 2020 Sep; 34(9):981-986. PubMed ID: 32578453
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable and Disposable Cystoscopes: A Path to Greener Urological Procedures.
Baboudjian M; Pradere B; Martin N; Gondran-Tellier B; Angerri O; Boucheron T; Bastide C; Emiliani E; Misrai V; Breda A; Lechevallier E
Eur Urol Focus; 2023 Jul; 9(4):681-687. PubMed ID: 36543725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The grasper-integrated disposable flexible cystoscope is comparable to the reusable, flexible cystoscope for the detection of bladder cancer.
Seyam RM; Zeitouni OM; Alsibai TM; AlAyoub AJ; Al-Qassab OM; AlDeiry MA; Zino AO; Hulwi HS; Mokhtar AA; Shahbaz M; Junejo NN; Alotaibi MF; Alzahrani HM; Alothman KI; Alkhateeb SS; Al-Hussain TO; Altaweel WM
Sci Rep; 2020 Aug; 10(1):13495. PubMed ID: 32778771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Cost-Effectiveness of 90-day Single-use Flexible Cystoscope Trial: Single Center Micro-Costing Analysis and User Satisfaction.
Assmus MA; Krambeck AE; Lee MS; Agarwal DK; Mellon M; Rivera ME; Large T
Urology; 2022 Sep; 167():61-66. PubMed ID: 35772484
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Workflow efficiencies for flexible cystoscopy: comparing single-use vs reusable cystoscopes.
Haislip I; Rindorf D; Cool C; Tester B
BMC Urol; 2024 Mar; 24(1):53. PubMed ID: 38448827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of OnabotulinumtoxinA Intradetrusor Injection Needle Performance with Modern Flexible Cystoscopes.
Williams RD; Dove J; Petrou SP; Thiel DD
J Endourol; 2015 Nov; 29(11):1309-13. PubMed ID: 26086680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Prospective Analysis of Versatility and User Satisfaction with a Novel Single-Use Cystoscope with Working Channel.
Lütfrenk T; Neisius A; Rausch S; Salem J; Kuru TH
Urol Int; 2023; 107(6):570-577. PubMed ID: 37071983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes.
Kemble JP; Winoker JS; Patel SH; Su ZT; Matlaga BR; Potretzke AM; Koo K
BJU Int; 2023 May; 131(5):617-622. PubMed ID: 36515438
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Single-Use Grasper Integrated Flexible Cystoscope for Stent Removal: A Micro-Costing Analysis-Based Comparison.
Beebe SC; Jenkins LC; Posid T; Knudsen BE; Sourial MW
J Endourol; 2020 Aug; 34(8):816-820. PubMed ID: 32600072
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Prospective comparison of flexible fiberoptic and digital cystoscopes.
Okhunov Z; Hruby GW; Mirabile G; Marruffo F; Lehman DS; Benson MC; Gupta M; Landman J
Urology; 2009 Aug; 74(2):427-30. PubMed ID: 19501889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor high definition cystoscope, a distal sensor standard definition cystoscope, and a fiberoptic cystoscope.
Lusch A; Liss MA; Greene P; Abdelshehid C; Menhadji A; Bucur P; Alipanah R; McDougall E; Landman J
Urology; 2013 Dec; 82(6):1226-30. PubMed ID: 24094651
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Environmental Impact of Flexible Cystoscopy: A Comparative Analysis Between Carbon Footprint of Isiris
Jahrreiss V; Sarrot P; Davis NF; Somani B
J Endourol; 2024 Apr; 38(4):386-394. PubMed ID: 38185843
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Comparison of optical resolution with digital and standard fiberoptic cystoscopes in an in vitro model.
Quayle SS; Ames CD; Lieber D; Yan Y; Landman J
Urology; 2005 Sep; 66(3):489-93. PubMed ID: 16140063
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Disposable versus Reusable Cystoscopes: A Micro-Costing Value Analysis in High-Volume and Low-Volume Urology Practices.
Young JA; Garden EB; Al-Alao O; Deoraj D; Small AC; Hruby G; Grotas AB; Palese MA
Urol Pract; 2021 Jul; 8(4):466-471. PubMed ID: 37145468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
