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 *

78 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8426430)

  • 1. The effects of a soft tissue mimicking medium and increased power settings on the location and magnitude of lithotripter peak positive pressure.
    Davros WJ; Garra BS; Pahira JJ; Zeman RK
    J Urol; 1993 Feb; 149(2):390-4. PubMed ID: 8426430
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Out-of-focus shockwaves: a new tissue-protecting therapy?
    Loske AM; Gutierrez J; Di Grazia E; Fernández F
    Arch Ital Urol Androl; 2004 Dec; 76(4):159-62. PubMed ID: 15693429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Theoretical predictions of the acoustic pressure generated by a shock wave lithotripter.
    Coleman AJ; Choi MJ; Saunders JE
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 1991; 17(3):245-55. PubMed ID: 1887510
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Shifting the Split Reflectors to Enhance Stone Fragmentation of Shock Wave Lithotripsy.
    Wang JC; Zhou Y
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 2016 Aug; 42(8):1876-89. PubMed ID: 27166016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Independent assessment of a wide-focus, low-pressure electromagnetic lithotripter: absence of renal bioeffects in the pig.
    Evan AP; McAteer JA; Connors BA; Pishchalnikov YA; Handa RK; Blomgren P; Willis LR; Williams JC; Lingeman JE; Gao S
    BJU Int; 2008 Feb; 101(3):382-8. PubMed ID: 17922871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Comparison of Broad vs Narrow Focal Width Lithotripter Fields.
    Xing Y; Chen TT; Simmons WN; Sankin G; Cocks FH; Lipkin ME; Preminger GM; Zhong P
    J Endourol; 2017 May; 31(5):502-509. PubMed ID: 28340536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Suppression of large intraluminal bubble expansion in shock wave lithotripsy without compromising stone comminution: methodology and in vitro experiments.
    Zhong P; Zhou Y
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2001 Dec; 110(6):3283-91. PubMed ID: 11785829
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Acoustic streaming in lithotripsy fields: preliminary observation using a particle image velocimetry method.
    Choi MJ; Doh DH; Hwang TG; Cho CH; Paeng DG; Rim GH; Coleman AJ
    Ultrasonics; 2006 Feb; 44(2):133-45. PubMed ID: 16376400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A performance analysis of an extracorporeal shock wave lithotripter: spatial pressure distribution and the effects of lithotripter voltage, electrode life, and tissue attenuation.
    Monaghan P; Gilbert JL; Prystowsky JB
    J Stone Dis; 1992 Oct; 4(4):289-300. PubMed ID: 10147810
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Optimizing results of lithotripsy using robust electromagnetic probe.
    Keeley FX; Pye SD; Smith G; Tolley DA
    J Endourol; 1999 May; 13(4):261-7. PubMed ID: 10405903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Confocal lens focused piezoelectric lithotripter.
    Thomas GPL; Chapelon JY; Birer A; Inserra C; Lafon C
    Ultrasonics; 2020 Apr; 103():106066. PubMed ID: 32028115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Influence of water temperature on pressure pulses generated by an electromagnetic type lithotripter.
    Augat P; Claes L
    Ultrasound Med Biol; 1995; 21(1):89-96. PubMed ID: 7754582
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. A dual passive cavitation detector for localized detection of lithotripsy-induced cavitation in vitro.
    Cleveland RO; Sapozhnikov OA; Bailey MR; Crum LA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 2000 Mar; 107(3):1745-58. PubMed ID: 10738826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Comparison of electrohydraulic lithotripters with rigid and pressure-release ellipsoidal reflectors. I. Acoustic fields.
    Bailey MR; Blackstock DT; Cleveland RO; Crum LA
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1998 Oct; 104(4):2517-24. PubMed ID: 10491712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Modeling of an electrohydraulic lithotripter with the KZK equation.
    Averkiou MA; Cleveland RO
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1999 Jul; 106(1):102-12. PubMed ID: 10420620
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. [The modelling of the cavitation processes during the focusing of the shock wave in an electrodynamic lithotriptor].
    Andriianov IuV; Li AA; Teslenko VS
    Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult; 1992; (4):42-8. PubMed ID: 1455798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Improved acoustic coupling for shock wave lithotripsy.
    Neucks JS; Pishchalnikov YA; Zancanaro AJ; VonDerHaar JN; Williams JC; McAteer JA
    Urol Res; 2008 Feb; 36(1):61-6. PubMed ID: 18172634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Effect of stone motion on in vitro comminution efficiency of Storz Modulith SLX.
    Cleveland RO; Anglade R; Babayan RK
    J Endourol; 2004 Sep; 18(7):629-33. PubMed ID: 15597649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Application- and patient size-dependent optimization of x-ray spectra for CT.
    Kalender WA; Deak P; Kellermeier M; van Straten M; Vollmar SV
    Med Phys; 2009 Mar; 36(3):993-1007. PubMed ID: 19378760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 4.