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.
160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37051695)
41. One-port retroperitoneoscopic assisted pyeloplasty versus open dismembered pyeloplasty in young children: preliminary experience. Caione P; Lais A; Nappo SG J Urol; 2010 Nov; 184(5):2109-15. PubMed ID: 20851429 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Comparison of open and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction surgery: report of 49 cases. Umari P; Lissiani A; Trombetta C; Belgrano E Arch Ital Urol Androl; 2011 Dec; 83(4):169-74. PubMed ID: 22670313 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Chang SJ; Hsu CK; Hsieh CH; Yang SS World J Urol; 2015 Nov; 33(11):1855-65. PubMed ID: 25754944 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Robot-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in renal anomalies. Hajiyev P; Gliatis A; Gundeti MS J Pediatr Urol; 2023 Aug; 19(4):484. PubMed ID: 37055343 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience. Ganpule A; Jairath A; Singh A; Mishra S; Sabnis R; Desai M World J Urol; 2015 Nov; 33(11):1867-73. PubMed ID: 26433387 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. [Technical aspects of laparoscopic robot-assisted pyeloplasty]. Ferhi K; Rouprêt M; Rode J; Misraï V; Lebeau T; Richard F; Vaessen C Prog Urol; 2009 Oct; 19(9):606-10. PubMed ID: 19800549 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Assistant port is unnecessary for robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children: a comparative cohort study. Danacioglu YO; Keser F; Polat S; Gunaydin B; Comez YI; Silay MS Pediatr Surg Int; 2022 Sep; 38(9):1327-1334. PubMed ID: 35849174 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Single Port Robotic Pyeloplasty: early single-center experience. Ditonno F; Franco A; Manfredi C; Chow AK; Vourganti S; Cherullo EE; Autorino R Int Braz J Urol; 2023; 49(6):757-762. PubMed ID: 37903009 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Robot-assisted, single-site, dismembered pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction with the new da Vinci platform: a stage 2a study. Buffi NM; Lughezzani G; Fossati N; Lazzeri M; Guazzoni G; Lista G; Larcher A; Abrate A; Fiori C; Cestari A; Porpiglia F Eur Urol; 2015 Jan; 67(1):151-156. PubMed ID: 24656756 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Robot-assisted laparoscopic single-port pyeloplasty using the da Vinci SP® system: initial experience with a pediatric patient. Kang SK; Jang WS; Kim SW; Kim SH; Han SW; Lee YS J Pediatr Urol; 2019 Oct; 15(5):576-577. PubMed ID: 31570233 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Comparison of open, laparoscopic and robot-assisted pyeloplasty for pelviureteric junction obstruction in adult patients. Rasool S; Singh M; Jain S; Chaddha S; Tyagi V; Pahwa M; Pandey H J Robot Surg; 2020 Apr; 14(2):325-329. PubMed ID: 31222624 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Abdel-Karim AM; Fahmy A; Moussa A; Rashad H; Elbadry M; Badawy H; Hammady A J Pediatr Urol; 2016 Dec; 12(6):401.e1-401.e6. PubMed ID: 27614698 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Editorial comment on: Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty for patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: effect on operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and success rate. Novara G Eur Urol; 2009 Nov; 56(5):857-8. PubMed ID: 19359085 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
55. The laparoscopic pyeloplasty: is there a role in the age of robotics? Reddy MN; Nerli RB Urol Clin North Am; 2015 Feb; 42(1):43-52. PubMed ID: 25455171 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Minimally invasive vascular hitch to treat pediatric extrinsic ureteropelvic junction obstruction by crossing polar vessels: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Miscia ME; Lauriti G; Riccio A; Di Renzo D; Cascini V; Lelli Chiesa P; Lisi G J Pediatr Urol; 2021 Aug; 17(4):493-501. PubMed ID: 33775572 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Secondary Management for Recurrent Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction after Pyeloplasty: A Comparison of Re-Do Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty and Conventional Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty. Zhang Y; Ouyang W; Xu H; Luan Y; Yang J; Lu Y; Hu J; Liu Z; Yu X; Guan W; Hu Z; Ye Z; Wang S; Li H Urol Int; 2019; 103(4):466-472. PubMed ID: 31537001 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. 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]
59. Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: Results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party. Silay MS; Spinoit AF; Undre S; Fiala V; Tandogdu Z; Garmanova T; Guttilla A; Sancaktutar AA; Haid B; Waldert M; Goyal A; Serefoglu EC; Baldassarre E; Manzoni G; Radford A; Subramaniam R; Cherian A; Hoebeke P; Jacobs M; Rocco B; Yuriy R; Zattoni F; Kocvara R; Koh CJ J Pediatr Urol; 2016 Aug; 12(4):229.e1-7. PubMed ID: 27346071 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]