Comparative investigations on the retrieval capabilities of various baskets and graspers in four ex vivo models

European Urology

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 406-410

  Ptashnyk, Taras ^a   Cueva Martinez, Armando ^a   Michel, Maurice Stephan ^a   Alken, Peter ^a   Köhrmann, Kai Uwe ^a  

^a CRS Mannheim GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

Baskets; Flexible ureterorenoscopy; Graspers

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SWINE; URETER STONE; URETEROSCOPY;

ANIMALS; DISEASE MODELS, ANIMAL; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; KIDNEY CALCULI; SWINE; URETERAL CALCULI; UROLOGY;

EID: 0036555431     PISSN: 03022838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0302-2838(02)00063-5     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. El-Gabry EA, Bagley DH. Retrieval capabilities of different stone basket designs in vitro. J Endourol 1999;13(4):305-531.
2. Honey RJ. Assessment of a new tipples nitinol stone basket and comparison with an existing flat-wire basket. J Endourol 1988;12(6):529-31.
3. Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG, et al. Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 1997;158:1915-21.
4. Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G. Extracorporal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureterorenoscopy for distal ureteral calculi: A prospective randomised study. J Urol 1999;162:1909-12.
5. Elbahnasy AM, et al. Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy: Impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol 1998;12:113-9.
6. Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower-pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 1999;162:1904-8.
7. Afane JS, Olweny EO, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopes: A single centre of evaluation of the durability and the function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9 F. J Urol 2000;164(4):1164-8.