Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Nephrol. Feb 6, 2015; 4(1): 111-117
Published online Feb 6, 2015. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v4.i1.111
Published online Feb 6, 2015. doi: 10.5527/wjn.v4.i1.111
Ref. | Study type | No. of patients | Follow-up | Disease progression (stone growth) | Symptomatic episode | Need for intervention |
Glowacki et al[1] | Retrospective | 107 | 31.6 mo | NA | 31.8% | 16.8% |
Hübner et al[3] | Retrospective | 80 | 7.4 yr | 45% | 68% | 83% |
Keeley et al[5] | Randomized prospective | 200 | 2.2 yr | NA | 21% | 10% |
Burgher et al[2] | Retrospective | 300 | 3.26 yr | 77% | NA | 26% |
Inci et al[4] | Retrospective | 24 | 52.3 mo | 33.3% | 41.7% | 11% |
- Citation: Takazawa R, Kitayama S, Tsujii T. Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: When to switch to a percutaneous approach. World J Nephrol 2015; 4(1): 111-117
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-6124/full/v4/i1/111.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5527/wjn.v4.i1.111