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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

186 related items for PubMed ID: 25383399

  • 21.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28. Ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: Open or minimally invasive surgery? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Cascini V, Lauriti G, Di Renzo D, Miscia ME, Lisi G.
    Front Pediatr; 2022; 10():1052440. PubMed ID: 36507128
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29. Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty.
    Liu DB, Ellimoottil C, Flum AS, Casey JT, Gong EM.
    J Pediatr Urol; 2014 Aug; 10(4):610-5. PubMed ID: 25082711
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Technical modifications for robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
    Mendez-Torres F, Woods M, Thomas R.
    J Endourol; 2005 Apr; 19(3):393-6. PubMed ID: 15865534
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions.
    Chan YY, Durbin-Johnson B, Sturm RM, Kurzrock EA.
    J Pediatr Urol; 2017 Feb; 13(1):49.e1-49.e6. PubMed ID: 28288777
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A, Guazzoni G, Buffi N, Peters CA, Stein RJ, Gettman M.
    Eur Urol; 2014 Feb; 65(2):430-52. PubMed ID: 23856037
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. 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
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. The efficacy of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Sun M, Yu C, Zhao J, Liu M, Liu Y, Han R, Chen L, Wu S.
    Pediatr Surg Int; 2023 Sep 06; 39(1):265. PubMed ID: 37673951
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. A prospective comparison of robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty.
    Link RE, Bhayani SB, Kavoussi LR.
    Ann Surg; 2006 Apr 06; 243(4):486-91. PubMed ID: 16552199
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Minimally invasive pyeloplasty versus open pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Wang M, Xi Y, Huang N, Wang P, Zhang L, Zhao M, Pu S.
    PeerJ; 2023 Apr 06; 11():e16468. PubMed ID: 38025670
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 10.