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 | Mean stone | Mean number | SFR after the | SFR after the |
patients | diameter | of operation | 1st operation | 2nd operation | ||
Ricchiuti et al[12] | Single center, retrospective | 23 | 3.1 cm | 1.43 | 56.5% | 73.9% |
Breda et al[13] | Single center, retrospective | 15 | 2.2 cm | 2.3 | 60% | 86.6% |
Riley et al[14] | Single center, retrospective | 22 | 3.0 cm | 1.82 | 23% | 86.4% |
Hyams et al[15] | Multi center, retrospective | 120 | 2.4 cm | 1.18 | 83% | 97.5% |
Takazawa et al[10] | Single center, retrospective | 20 | 3.1 cm | 1.4 | 65% | 95% |
- 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