Intraoperative Ultrasound: Application in Pediatric Pyeloplasty

Urology

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 377-379

  Ginger, Van Anh T ^a   Lendvay, Thomas S ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b SEATTLE CHILDREN S RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; HUMAN; IMAGING SYSTEM; INFANT; PATIENT POSITIONING; PEROPERATIVE ECHOGRAPHY; PORTABLE EQUIPMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PYELOPLASTY; ROBOTICS; SURGICAL PATIENT; ULTRASOUND TRANSDUCER; URETER STENT;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; HUMANS; INFANT; INTRAOPERATIVE PERIOD; KIDNEY PELVIS; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; STENTS;

EID: 58649088222     PISSN: 00904295     EISSN: 15279995     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.08.507     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Woo H.H., and Farnsworth R.H. Dismembered pyeloplasty in infants under the age of 12 months. Br J Urol 77 (1996) 449-451
2. McMullin N., Khor T., and King P. Internal ureteric stenting following pyeloplasty reduces length of hospital stay in children. Br J Urol 72 (1993) 370-372
3. Mandhani A., Goel S., and Bhandari M. Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty?. J Urol 171 (2004) 1440-1442
4. Arumainayagam N., Minervini A., Davenport K., et al. Antegrade versus retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Endourol 22 (2008) 671-674
5. Chandrasekharam V.V. Is retrograde stenting more reliable than antegrade stenting for pyeloplasty in infants and children?. Urology 66 (2005) 1301-1304
6. Palmer J.S., and Palmer L.S. Determining the proper stent length to use in children: age plus 10. J Urol 178 (2007) 1566-1569