This site needs JavaScript to work properly. Please enable it to take advantage of the complete set of features!

Skip to main page content

Add to Collections

Your saved search

Name of saved search:

Search terms:

Test search terms

Would you like email updates of new search results?

Yes
No

Email: (change)

Frequency:

Which day?

Which day?

Report format:

Send at most:

Send even when there aren't any new results

Optional text in email:

Your RSS Feed

Editorial

. 2016 Apr;195(4 Pt 1):823-4.

doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.061. Epub 2016 Jan 22.

Is Ureteroscopy as Good as We Think?

Margaret S Pearle¹

Affiliations

PMID: 26807927
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.061

Editorial

Is Ureteroscopy as Good as We Think?

Margaret S Pearle. J Urol. 2016 Apr.

. 2016 Apr;195(4 Pt 1):823-4.

doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.061. Epub 2016 Jan 22.

Author

Margaret S Pearle¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.

PMID: 26807927
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.061

No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment on

Natural History, Complications and Re-Intervention Rates of Asymptomatic Residual Stone Fragments after Ureteroscopy: a Report from the EDGE Research Consortium.
Chew BH, Brotherhood HL, Sur RL, Wang AQ, Knudsen BE, Yong C, Marien T, Miller NL, Krambeck AE, Charchenko C, Humphreys MR. Chew BH, et al. J Urol. 2016 Apr;195(4 Pt 1):982-6. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.11.009. Epub 2015 Nov 14. J Urol. 2016. PMID: 26585680

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- Elsevier Science
Other Literature Sources
- scite Smart Citations