Диссертация (1173291), страница 21
Текст из файла (страница 21)
– P. 3000-∙3007.128.Comparison of super∙-mini PCNL (S∙MP) versus Mini∙perc for sto∙nes largerth∙an 2 cm: a prope∙nsity score-matching st∙udy / Y. Li∙u, J. AlSm∙adi, W. Zhu [et al∙.] //Wo∙rld J. Ur∙ol. – 20∙18. – Vo∙l. 36, № 6. – P. 955-∙961. doi: 10.1007/s0034∙5-0182197-7.129.Complications af∙ter Percutaneous Nephrol∙ithotomy / T. Ya∙ng, S. Li∙u, J. Hu[et al∙.] // Bio∙Med Res. In∙t. – 20∙17. - 4832∙051.130.Complications assoc∙iated with ureteror∙enoscopy (URS) rel∙ated to trea∙tment ofurolit∙hiasis: the Clin∙ical Research Off∙ice of Endouro∙logical Society URS Glo∙balstudy / B.∙K. Somani, G. Giu∙sti, Y. Sun [et al∙.] // Wo∙rld J. Ur∙ol. – 20∙17.
– Vol∙ . 35,№ 4. – P. 675-∙681.131.Computer tomog∙raphy urography assi∙sted real-time ultrasou∙nd-guidedpercutaneous nephrol∙ithotomy on re∙nal calculus / Y.∙Q. Fang, J.∙Y. Wu, T.∙C. Li [etal∙.] // Medi∙cine. – 20∙17. – Vol∙ . 96, № 24. – P. e72∙15.132.Cong, X. Cur∙rent opinions on nephrol∙ithiasis associated wi∙th primaryhyperpara∙thyroidism / X. Co∙ng, L. Sh∙en, X. Gu // Urolit∙hiasis. – 20∙18. – Vol∙ . 46, №5. – P. 453-∙457.133.Contemporary Tre∙nds in the Ambul∙atory Surgical Trea∙tment of Urolit∙hiasis:Population-Based Anal∙ysis / O.∙A.
Raheem, H.∙S. Mirheydar, D.∙L. Miller [et al∙.] // J.Endo∙urol. – 20∙15. – Vo∙l. 29, № 10. – P. 1189∙-92.134.Cost Anal∙ysis of Flex∙ible Ureteroscope Repa∙irs: Evaluation of 655Proce∙dures in a Communi∙ty-Based Practice / E. Kramol∙owsky, Z. McDo∙well, B.126Mo∙ore [et al∙.] // J.
Endo∙urol. – 20∙16. – Vol∙ . 30, № 3. – P. 254-∙ 6. doi:10.1089/end.∙ 2015.0642.135.Desai, M.∙R. Management of urolit∙hiasis in So∙uth Asia / M.∙R. Desai, A.∙P.Ganpule // BJU In∙t. – 20∙17. – Vol∙ . 120, № 5. – P. 60∙2.136.Desai, M.∙R. Miniaturized Percut∙aneous Nephrolithotomy: A Dec∙ade ofPara∙digm Shift in Percut∙aneous Renal Acce∙ ss / M.∙R. Desai, A.∙P. Ganpule // Eu∙r.Urol.
– 20∙17. – Vo∙l. 72, № 2. – P. 236-∙237.137.Diabetes mell∙itus and the ri∙sk of urolit∙hiasis: a meta-a∙nalysis of observ∙ationalstudies / L.∙H. Liu, R. Ka∙ng, J. He [et al∙.] // Urolit∙hiasis. – 20∙15. – Vol∙ . 43, № 4. – P.293-∙301.138.Differences in the percut∙aneous nephrolithotomy prac∙tice patterns am∙ongLatin Amer∙ican urologists wi∙th and wit∙hout endourology trai∙ning / B.∙O. Manzo, E.Loz∙ada, F.C.
Vice∙ntini [et al∙.] // In∙t. Braz. J. Ur∙ol. – 20∙18. – Vol∙ . 44, № 3. – P. 512∙523.139.Do Cal∙cium Supplements Predi∙spose to Urolit∙hiasis? / D. Kozyr∙akis, D.Pari∙dis, A. Kara∙tzas [et al∙.] // Cu∙rr. Urol. Re∙p. – 20∙17. – Vol∙ . 18, № 3. – P. 17.140.Dopati∙entsbenefitfr∙omminiaturizedtube∙lesspercutaneousnephroli∙thotomy? A compa∙rative prospective stu∙ dy / T. Kno∙ll, F.
Wez∙el, M.S.Mic∙hel [et al∙.] // J. Endo∙urol. – 20∙10. – Vol∙ . 24, № 7. – P. 107∙5-9.141.Do the urolit∙hiasis scoring sys∙tems predict the suc∙cess of percut∙aneousnephrolithotomy in ca∙ses with anato∙mical abnormalities? / R. Kocaa∙slan, A.Tepe∙ler, I. Bu∙ldu [et al∙.] // Urolit∙hiasis. – 20∙17. – Vol∙ .
45, № 3. – P. 305-∙310.142.Doizi, S. Evol∙ution of urolit∙hiasis treatment ov∙er 30 ye∙ars in a Fre∙nchacademic insti∙tution / S. Doi∙zi, G. Ray∙nal, O. Tra∙xer // Pro∙gres Urologie. – 20∙15. –Vo∙l. 25, № 9. – P. 543∙-8.143.EAU Guide∙lines on Diag∙nosis and Conser∙vative Management of Urolit∙hiasis /C. Tu∙rk, A. Pet∙rik, K. Sar∙ica [et al∙.] // Eur∙ . Urol. – 20∙16.
– Vol∙ . 69, № 3. – P. 468∙74.127144.Effects of Paren∙chymal Thickness and St∙one Density Val∙ues on Percut∙aneousNephrolithotomy Outc∙omes / M. Kara∙lar, E. Tuz∙el, I. Ke∙les [et al∙.] // Me∙d. Sci.Moni∙tor. – 20∙16. – Vol∙ . 22. – P. 4363-∙4368.145.Emergent ver∙sus delayed litho∙tripsy for obstr∙ucting ureteral sto∙nes: acumul∙ative analysis of compa∙rative studies / D. Arcan∙iolo, M. De Si∙o, J. Rassw∙eiler[et al∙.] // Urolit∙hiasis.
– 20∙17. – Vo∙l. 45, № 6. – P. 563-∙572.146.Endoscopic manag∙ement of pedi∙atric urolithiasis in a devel∙oping country / E.Hol∙man, A.M. Kh∙an, T. Fla∙sko [et al∙.] // Urol∙ogy. – 20∙04. – Vol∙ . 63, № 1. – P. 159∙62.147.Epidemiology of sto∙ ne disease acr∙oss the wo∙rld / I. Soro∙kin, C. Mamou∙lakis,K. Miya∙zawa [et al∙.] // Wo∙rld J. Ur∙ol. – 20∙17.
– Vo∙l. 35, № 9. – P. 1301-∙1320. doi:10.1007/s0034∙5-017-2008-6.148.Evaluation of Re∙nal Function af∙ter Percutaneous Nephrolith∙otomy-Does theNum∙ber of Percut∙aneous Access Tra∙cts Matter? / I. Gorbac∙hinsky, K. Wo∙od, M.Col∙aco [et al∙.] // J. Ur∙ol. – 20∙16. – Vo∙l. 196, № 1. – P. 131∙-6.149.Falahatkar, S. An Upd∙ate on Sup∙ine Versus Pr∙one PercutaneousNephroli∙thotomy: A Meta-a∙nalysis / S.
Falah∙atkar, G. Mokh∙tari, M. Teim∙oori //Ur∙ol. J. – 20∙16. – Vol∙ . 13, № 5. – P. 2814-∙2822.150.Flexible ureteror∙enoscopy vs percut∙aneous nephrolithotomy for re∙nal stonemanag∙ement: Retrospective stu∙ dy / X. Palm∙ero, L. Bal∙ssa, S. Berna∙rdini [et al∙.] //Pro∙gres Urol. – 20∙16. – Vol∙ . 26, № 9. – P. 500∙-6.151.Fluoroscopy ver∙sus ultrasound for im∙age guidance dur∙ing percutaneousnephroli∙thotomy: a syste∙matic review and meta-a∙nalysis / Q. Liu∙ , L. Zh∙ou, X. Cai[et al∙.] // Urolit∙hiasis.
– 20∙17. – Vo∙l. 45, № 5. – P. 481-∙487.152.Geographic Vari∙ation in the Qua∙lity of Seco∙ndary Prevention forNephrol∙ithiasis / A.∙F. Alruwaily, C.∙A. Dauw, M.∙J. Bierlein [et al∙.] // Urol∙ogy. –20∙15. – Vol∙ . 86, № 3. – P. 454∙-8.153.Goodwin, W.∙E. Percutaneous tro∙car (needle) nephr∙ostomy in hydrone∙phrosis/ W.∙E. Goodwin, W.∙C. Casey, W.
Wo∙olf // J. Am. Me∙d. Assoc. – 19∙55. – Vo∙l. 157,№ 11. – P. 891∙-4.128154.Hospital admi∙ssion for trea∙tment of compli∙cations after extraco∙rporeal shockwa∙ve lithotripsy for re∙nal stones: a st∙udy of ri∙sk factors / A.∙R. El-Nahas, D.∙E. Taha,M.∙M. Elsaadany [et al∙.] // Urolit∙hiasis. – 20∙18. – Vol∙ . 46, № 3. – P.
291-∙296. doi:10.1007/s0024∙0-017-0983-0.155.Identification of new uri∙nary risk mar∙kers for uri∙nary stones usi∙ ng a logi∙sticmodel and multi∙nomial logit mo∙del / A. Oka∙da, R. An∙do, K. Tag∙uchi [et al∙.] // Cl∙in.Exp. Neph∙rol. – 20∙19. - do∙i: 10.1007/s10157-019-01693-x.156.Ingimarsson, J.∙P. Diagnosis and Manag∙ement of Nephrol∙ithiasis / J.∙P.Ingimarsson, A.∙E. Krambeck, V.∙M. Pais Jr. // Su∙rg. Clin. N.
Am. – 20∙16. – Vol∙ . 96,№ 3. – P. 517∙-32.157.Integration and utili∙zation of mod∙ern technologies in nephroli∙ thiasis research /M.∙S. Borofsky, C.∙A. Dauw, A. Co∙hen [et al∙.] // Nat∙ure Rev. Ur∙ol. – 20∙16. – Vo∙l. 13,№ 9. – P. 549∙-57.158.Is retro∙grade intrarenal sur∙gery replacing percut∙aneous nephrolithotomy assurg∙ical treatment of st∙one disease: Our clin∙ical experience / S. Sari∙kaya, A. Uns∙al,T. Ebil∙oglu [et al∙.] // Ar∙ch.
Esp. Ur∙ol. – 20∙18. – Vol∙ . 71, № 5. – P. 506-∙511.159.Is the Homocy∙steine Level a Go∙od Predictive Mar∙ker for Evalu∙ating KidneyFunc∙tion in Pati∙ents After Percut∙aneous Nephrolithotomy / I. Karl∙idag, D. Aba∙ t, A.Altu∙nkol [et al∙.] // Ur∙ol. J. – 20∙18. – Vo∙l. 15, № 4. – P. 153-∙157.160.Laparoscopic nephr∙ectomy using the harm∙onic scalpel / M. Hel∙al, J. Alber∙tini,J.
Lock∙hart, M. Alb∙rink // J. Endo∙urol. – 19∙97. – Vo∙l. 11, № 4. – P. 267∙-8.161.Lawinski, J. The anal∙ysis of periop∙erative complications of percut∙aneousnephrolithotomy in the trea∙tment of nephrol∙ithiasis with the use of modi∙fiedClavien-Dindo classif∙ication / J.
Lawi∙nski, Z. Jablo∙nowski // Po∙l. MerkuriuszLeka∙rski. – 20∙18. – № 44 (26∙0). – P. 49-∙53.162.Logistic regre∙ssion analysis of ri∙sk factors of ser∙ious complications rel∙atedwith doub∙le-J ureteral sten∙ting following percut∙aneous nephrolithotomy / W. We∙i,Y.X. Zho∙ng, J.H. Hua∙ ng [et al∙.] // Nan Fa∙ng Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Ba∙o.
– 20∙16. – Vo∙l.36, № 10. – P. 1440-∙1443.129163.Management of la∙rge renal sto∙nes: laparoscopic pyeloli∙thotomy versuspercut∙aneous nephrolithotomy / Y. Ba∙i, Y. Ta∙ng, L. De∙ng [et al∙.] // BMC Ur∙ol. –20∙17. – Vol∙ . 17, № 1. – P. 75.164.Management of Ureth∙ritis: Is It St∙ill the Ti∙me for Empi∙rical AntibioticTreat∙ments? / R. Barto∙letti, F.M.E. Wagenl∙ehner, T.E. Bjer∙klund Johansen [et al∙.] //Eu∙r.Urol.Foc∙us.201∙ 8.–pii:S2405-4569(∙18)30299-2.doi:10.1016/j.euf∙.2018.10.006.165.Medical Expu∙lsive Therapy for Ureterol∙ithiasis: The EAU Recomme∙ndationsin 201∙ 6 / C. Tür∙ k, T. Kno∙ll, C.
Se∙itz [et al∙.] // Eur∙ . Urol. – 20∙17. – Vol∙ . 71, № 4. –P. 504-∙507. doi: 10.1016/j.euru∙ro.2016.07.024.166.Minimally Inva∙sive Percutaneous Nephrol∙ithotomy versus Retro∙gradeIntrarenal Sur∙gery for Up∙per Urinary Sto∙nes: A Syste∙matic Review and MetaA∙nalysis / H. Jia∙ng, Z. Yu, L. Ch∙en [et al∙.] // Bio∙Med Res. In∙t. – 201∙ 7. – 20∙17. –2035∙851.167.Minimally inva∙sive percutaneous nephrol∙ithotomy vs stan∙dard PCNL formanag∙ement of re∙nal stones in the flank∙-free modified sup∙ine position: single∙-centerexperience / A.
Sa∙kr, E. Sal∙em, M. Ka∙mel [et al∙.] // Urolit∙hiasis. – 20∙17. – Vol∙ . 45,№ 6. – P. 585-∙589.168.Natural His∙tory of Resi∙dual Fragments Af∙ter Percutaneous Nephroli∙thotomy:Evaluation of Fac∙tors Related to Clin∙ical Events and Interv∙ention / D. Olvera∙Posada,169.S.N. Al∙i, M. Di∙on [et al∙.] // Urol∙ogy.
– 20∙16. – Vol∙ . 97. – P. 46-∙50.Ng, C.∙F. Is extraco∙rporeal shock wa∙ve lithotripsy the pref∙erred treatmentopt∙ion for eld∙erly patients wi∙th urinary sto∙ne? A multiv∙ariate analysis of the eff∙ectof pat∙ient age on trea∙tment outcome / C.∙F. Ng, A. Wo∙ng, D. Tol∙ley // BJU In∙t.
–20∙07. – Vol∙ . 100, № 2. – P. 392∙-5.170.Operatingti∙mesandblee∙dingcomplicationsinpercut∙aneousnephrolithotomy: a compa∙rison of tr∙act dilation met∙hods in 5,∙537 patients in theClin∙icalResearchOff∙iceoftheEndouro∙logicalSocietyPercut∙aneousNephrolithotomy Glo∙bal Study / A. Yamag∙uchi, A. Skola∙rikos, N.P. Buch∙holz [etal∙.] // J. Endo∙urol.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
