ライフサイエンスコーパス: ureteroscopy

1 with observation, shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy.

2 the major groups of instruments employed for ureteroscopy.

3 es in instrumentation for rigid and flexible ureteroscopy.

4 tones, can also be treated successfully with ureteroscopy.

5 Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs ureteroscopy.

6 rance occurred in 474 patients who underwent ureteroscopy (71.2% [95% CI, 63.8%-78.5%]) and in 105 pa

7 ithotomy and 73.4% (95% CI, 69.4%-77.4%) for ureteroscopy, a difference that was not statistically si

8 ithotomy and 55.0% (95% CI, 32.9%-77.1%) for ureteroscopy, a statistically significant difference (ri

9 tcomes with percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy after failed SWL are not as good as those o

10 use, dividing them into three equal groups: ureteroscopy and ECIRS in the prone and supine positions

11 ngle-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURS) after ureteroscopy and endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery

12 rocedures for 767 patients (80.4%) receiving ureteroscopy and for 6 procedures for 5 patients (2.6%)

13 ty in both flexible and rigid cystoscopy and ureteroscopy and its potential for detection of carcinom

14 We demonstrate that the use of concurrent ureteroscopy and near-infrared fluorescence enables safe

15 r experience will direct surgeons as to when ureteroscopy and PCNL are appropriate.

16 Ureteroscopy and PCNL have been applied at an increasing

17 More recently, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are

18 ones, surgical management is effective, with ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy achieving

19 the areas of recent advances, i.e. flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

20 Shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy all con

21 Although ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy predominate in t

22 Currently, ureteroscopy and shock-wave lithotripsy are regarded by

23 treated 1069 and 197 kidneys or ureters with ureteroscopy and shockwave lithotripsy (n = 953 and n =

24 ith results of urinalysis, cystoscopy and/or ureteroscopy, and/or surgery.

25 reatment outcomes, thus expanding the use of ureteroscopy as a first-line option for the treatment of

26 y stones 20 mm or larger, without mention of ureteroscopy as an alternative.

27 ents who underwent heminephroureterectomy or ureteroscopy between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2

28 Ureteroscopy continues to improve as a method for manage

29 kidney and ureteral stones are treated with ureteroscopy, despite the uncertainty and equal weight o

30 rthermore, a meta-analysis of case series of ureteroscopy during pregnancy suggests definitive endosc

31 ries have reported the complication rate for ureteroscopy during pregnancy to be low.

32 olithotomy for 98 kidneys and/or ureters and ureteroscopy for 1069, including 36 undergoing percutane

33 The use of ureteroscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic applications

34 rcutaneous nephrolithotomy and 43 undergoing ureteroscopy for stones larger than 15 mm.

35 ng therapies is expanding the indications of ureteroscopy for the management of renal calculi.

36 w the threshold in seven scopes (70%) in the ureteroscopy group and none in the ECIRS groups (P = 0.0

37 Here too, ureteroscopy has a central role in surveillance.

38 Ureteroscopy has assumed an expanded and important role

39 Additionally ureteroscopy has emerged not only as a diagnostic tool b

40 Ureteroscopy has for over a decade been the premier diag

41 Shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy have similar stone-free rates, although sho

42 Among 182 lesions biopsied at ureteroscopy in 124 male and 53 female patients (mean ag

43 ngs raise questions about the preference for ureteroscopy in practice.

44 ries and meta-analysis confirm the safety of ureteroscopy in pregnant patients in the appropriate set

45 e is a risk of complications associated with ureteroscopy, including iatrogenic mechanical ureteric i

46 Ureteroscopy is a minimally invasive approach for treati

47 th percutaneous nephrostolithotomy, although ureteroscopy is an option in select patients, particular

48 Ureteroscopy is demonstrated to be well tolerated and ef

49 Ureteroscopy is the most successful technique for the tr

50 Patients who had ureteroscopy missed more school (risk difference, 21.3%

51 Changes in shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy offer patients highly effective, minimally

52 e lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureteroscopy or open surgery depending on the size and l

53 Ex-vivo ureteroscopy or pyeloscopy can safely render a kidney-st

54 qual weight of guideline recommendations for ureteroscopy or shockwave lithotripsy.

55 modalities including shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and laparosco

56 Compared with ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy had significa

57 Compared with ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy had similar s

58 Compared with shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy resulted in greater pain interference (T-sc

59 regnant patient without contraindications to ureteroscopy, the definitive endoscopic treatment of an

60 Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) account for more than 90% of procedur

61 eaningful difference in stone clearance with ureteroscopy vs shockwave lithotripsy.

62 In conclusion, ureteroscopy was more closely associated with scope dama

63 Future improvements in ureteroscopy will rely on the continued application of t

64 al stent or percutaneous nephrostomy tube or ureteroscopy with definitive stone treatment are all rea

65 f the prostate (chi23 = 51.3; P = .001), and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (chi23 = 63.0; P = .

66 transurethral resection of the prostate, and ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy.