Innovations in Kidney Stone Removal

References

• Scales CD Jr, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):160–165. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli JA, Maalouf NM, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Use of the national health and nutrition examination survey to calculate the impact of obesity and diabetes on cost and prevalence of urolithiasis in 2030. Eur Urol. 2014;66(4):724–729. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.036
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perera M, Papa N, Kinnear N, et al. Urolithiasis treatment in Australia: the age of ureteroscopic intervention. J Endourol. 2016;30(11):1194–1199. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0513
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skolarikos A, Petrik A, Somani B, et al. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis; 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Black KM, Aldoukhi AH, Ghani KR. A users guide to holmium laser lithotripsy settings in the modern era. Front Surg. 2019;6:48. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2019.00048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juliebø-Jones P, Keller EX, Haugland JN, et al. Advances in ureteroscopy: new technologies and current innovations in the era of Tailored Endourological Stone Treatment (TEST). J Clin Urol. 2022;20514158221115986. doi:10.1177/205141582211159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzelves L, Somani B, Berdempes M, Markopoulos T, Skolarikos A. Basic and advanced technological evolution of laser lithotripsy over the past decade: an educational review by the European Society of Urotechnology section of the European Association of Urology. Turk J Urol. 2021;47(3):183–192. doi:10.5152/tud.2021.21030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pietropaolo A, Jones P, Whitehurst L, Somani BK. Role of ‘dusting and pop-dusting’ using a high-powered (100 W) laser machine in the treatment of large stones (≥ 15 mm): prospective outcomes over 16 months. Urolithiasis. 2019;47(4):391–394. doi:10.1007/s00240-018-1076-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller EX, Kronenberg P, Tailly T, et al. Laser accessories: surgical fibers, strippers, cleavers, and protective glasses. Curr Opin Urol. 2022;32(3):551–565. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000977
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandhu AS, Srivastava A, Madhusoodanan P, et al. Holmium: YAG laser for intra corporeal lithotripsy. Med J Armed Forces India. 2007;63(1):48–51. doi:10.1016/S0377-1237(07)80109-2
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseynov M, Andronov AS, Plekhanova OA. Clinical comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for ureteral stone management. J Endourol. 2021;35(6):795–800. doi:10.1089/end.2020.0581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traxer O, Keller EX. Thulium fiber laser: the new player for kidney stone treatment? A comparison with holmium: yAGlaser. World J Urol. 2020;38(8):1883–1894. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02654-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronenberg P, Hameed BZ, Somani B. Outcomes of thulium fibre laser for treatment of urinary tract stones: results of a systematic review. Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(2):80–86. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000853
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perri D, Berti L, Pacchetti A, et al. A comparison among RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust): a randomized controlled trial. World J Urol. 2022;40(10):2555–2560. doi:10.1007/s00345-022-04133-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones P, Beisland C, Ulvik Ø. Current status of thulium fibre laser lithotripsy: an up-to-date review. BJU Int. 2021;128(5):531–538. doi:10.1111/bju.15551
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium: yAGfor ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol. 2022;82(1):73–79. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2022.02.027
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kronenberg P, Traxer O. Update on lasers in urology 2014: current assessment on holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho: YAG)laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers. World J Urol. 2015;33(4):463–469. doi:10.1007/s00345-014-1395-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam J, Jackson S, Yuminaga Y, Winter M, Ko R, Khadra M. Long pulse-width setting improves holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy - enhanced fragmentation and retropulsion characteristics of renal calculi in a novel in-vivo setting. Surg Technol Int. 2020;37:168–170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stern KL, Monga M. The Moses holmium system - time is money. Can J Urol. 2018;25(3):9313–9316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elhilali MM, Badaan S, Ibrahim A, Andonian S. Use of the Moses technology to improve holmium laser lithotripsy outcomes: a preclinical study. J Endourol. 2017;31(6):598–604. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibrahim A, Elhilali MM, Fahmy N, Carrier S, Andonian S. Double-blinded prospective randomized clinical trial comparing regular and Moses modes of holmium laser lithotripsy. J Endourol. 2020;34(5):624–628. doi:10.1089/end.2019.0695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basulto-Martínez M, Proietti S, Pavia MP, Yeow Y, Eisner BH, Giusti G. Understanding the ablation rate of holmium: yAGand thulium fiber lasers. Perspectives from an in vitro study. Urolithiasis. 2023;51(1):32. doi:10.1007/s00240-022-01402-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozzini G, Maltagliati M, Berti L, et al. ”VirtualBasket” ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy: intraoperative and early postoperative outcomes. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2022;74(3):344–350. doi:10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04025-X
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anan G, Komatsu K, Hatakeyama S, et al. One-surgeon basketing technique for stone extraction during flexible ureteroscopy for urolithiasis: a comparison between novice and expert surgeons. Int J Urol. 2020;27(12):1072–1077. doi:10.1111/iju.14355
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gridley CM, Knudsen BE. Digital ureteroscopes: technology update. Res Rep Urol. 2017;9:19–25. doi:10.2147/RRU.S104229
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alexander B, Fishman AI, Grasso M. Ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy: technologic advancements. World J Urol. 2015;33(2):247–256. doi:10.1007/s00345-014-1402-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahaee J, Plott J, Ghani KR. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: how to choose and what is around the corner? Curr Opin Urol. 2021;31(2):87–94. doi:10.1097/MOU.0000000000000852
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mourmouris P, Tzelves L, Raptidis G, et al. Comparison of a single-use, digital flexible ureteroscope with a reusable, fiberoptic ureteroscope for management of patients with urolithiasis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021;93(3):326–329. doi:10.4081/aiua.2021.3.326
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ludwig WW, Lee G, Ziemba JB, Ko JS, Matlaga BR. Evaluating the ergonomics of flexible ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2017;31(10):1062–1066. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tom WR, Wollin DA, Jiang R, et al. Next-generation single-use ureteroscopes: an in vitro comparison. J Endourol. 2017;31(12):1301–1306. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0447
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dragos LB, Somani BK, Keller EX, et al. Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(Suppl 4):S359–S70. doi:10.21037/tau.2019.09.17
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kam J, Yuminaga Y, Beattie K, et al. Single use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective comparative study. Int J Urol. 2019;26(10):999–1005. doi:10.1111/iju.14091
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legemate JD, Kamphuis GM, Freund JE, et al. Pre-use ureteroscope contamination after high level disinfection: reprocessing effectiveness and the relation with cumulative ureteroscope use. J Urol. 2019;201(6):1144–1151. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talso M, Goumas IK, Kamphuis GM, et al. Reusable flexible ureterorenoscopes are more cost-effective than single-use scopes: results of a systematic review from PETRA uro-group. Transl Androl Urol. 2019;8(Suppl 4):S418–S25. doi:10.21037/tau.2019.06.13
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hameed BMZ, Pietropaolo A, Naik N, et al. Role of three dimensional (3D) printing in endourology: an update from EAU young academic urologists (YAU) urolithiasis and endourology working group. Front Surg. 2022;9:862348. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.862348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michiels C, Jambon E, Sarrazin J, et al. Revue compréhensive de l’apport de l’impression 3D en médecine : mise en perspective des différentes applications en urologie. [Comprehensive review of 3D printing use in medicine: comparison with practical applications in urology]. Prog Urol. 2021;31(12):762–771. French. doi:10.1016/j.purol.2021.04.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Yuan Y, Cai Y, Li X, Wan S, Xu G. Use 3D printing technology to enhance stone free rate in single tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of staghorn stones. Urolithiasis. 2020;48(6):509–516. doi:10.1007/s00240-019-01164-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali S, Sirota E, Ali H, et al. Three-dimensionally printed non-biological simulator for percutaneous nephrolithotomy training. Scand J Urol. 2020;54(4):349–354. doi:10.1080/21681805.2020.1773529
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golab A, Smektala T, Krolikowski M, Slojewski M. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy using an individual 3-dimensionally printed surgical guide. Urol Int. 2018;100(4):485–487. doi:10.1159/000446291
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern J, Zeltser IS, Pearle MS. Percutaneous renal access simulators. J Endourol. 2007;21(3):270–273. doi:10.1089/end.2007.9981
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mishra S, Jagtap J, Sabnis RB, Desai MR. Training in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2013;23(2):147–151. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e32835d4e37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameed BMZ, Somani S, Keller EX, et al. Application of virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality in endourology and urolithiasis: an update by YAU endourology and urolithiasis working group. Front Surg. 2022;9:866946. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.866946
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsumoto ED, Pace KT, Dah RJ. Virtual reality ureteroscopy simulator as a valid tool for assessing endourological skills. Int J Urol. 2006;13(7):896–901. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01436.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai JL, Zhang Y, Sun GF, Li NC, Yuan XL, Na YQ. Proficiency of virtual reality simulator training in flexible retrograde ureteroscopy renal stone management. Chin Med J. 2013;126(20):3940–3943.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hameed BMZ, Shah M, Naik N, et al. The ascent of artificial intelligence in endourology: a systematic review over the last 2 decades. Curr Urol Rep. 2021;22(10):53. doi:10.1007/s11934-021-01069-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah M, Naik N, Somani BK, Hameed BMZ. Artificial intelligence (AI) in urology-current use and future directions: an iTRUE study. Turk J Urol. 2020;46(Supp. 1):S27–S39. doi:10.5152/tud.2020.20117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzelves L, Manolitsis I, Varkarakis I, et al. Artificial intelligence supporting cancer patients across Europe-the ASCAPE project. PLoS One. 2022;17(4):e0265127. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0265127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Längkvist M, Jendeberg J, Thunberg P, Loutfi A, Lidén M. Computer aided detection of ureteral stones in thin slice computed tomography volumes using convolutional neural networks. Comput Biol Med. 2018;97:153–160. doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.04.021
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aldoukhi AH, Law H, Black KM, Roberts WW, Deng J, Ghani KR. PD04-06 deep learning computer vision algorithm for detecting kidney stone composition: towards an automated future. J Urol. 2019;201(Supplement 4):e75–e76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulakis V, Dahm P, Witzsch U, de Vries R, Remplik J, Becht E. Prediction of lower pole stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy using an artificial neural network. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1250–1256. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000055624.65386.b9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aminsharifi A, Irani D, Pooyesh S, et al. Artificial neural network system to predict the postoperative outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2017;31(5):461–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzelves L, Lazarou L, Feretzakis G, et al. Using machine learning techniques to predict antimicrobial resistance in stone disease patients. World J Urol. 2022;40(7):1731–1736. doi:10.1007/s00345-022-04043-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bratt CG, Aurell M, Erlandson BE, Nilson AE, Nilsson S. Intrapelvic pressure and urinary flow rate in obstructed and nonobstructed human kidneys. J Urol. 1982;127(6):1136–1142. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)54269-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rattner WH, Fink S, Murphy JJ. Pressure studies in the human ureter and renal pelvis. J Urol. 1957;78(4):359–362. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)66448-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinman F, Redewill FH. Pyelovenous back flow. J Am Med Assoc. 1926;87(16):1731–1736. doi:10.1001/jama.1926.02680160035011
   Google Scholar
• Schwalb DM, Eshghi M, Davidian M, Franco I. Morphological and physiological changes in the urinary tract associated with ureteral dilation and ureteropyeloscopy: an experimental study. J Urol. 1993;149(6):1576–1585. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)36456-X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreydin EI, Eisner BH. Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2013;10(10):598–605. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2013.183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haupt G, Pannek J, Herde T, Schulze H, Senge T. The lithovac: new suction device for the Swiss lithoclast. J Endourol. 1995;9(5):375–377. doi:10.1089/end.1995.9.375
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzelves L, Skolarikos A. Suction use during endourological procedures. Curr Urol Rep. 2020;21(11):46. doi:10.1007/s11934-020-00998-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu Z, Cui Y, Zeng F, Li Y, Chen Z, Hequn C. Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones. World J Urol. 2019;37(5):921–929. doi:10.1007/s00345-018-2455-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Song L, Xie D, et al. A randomized study of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) with the aid of a patented suctioning sheath in the treatment of renal calculus complicated by pyonephrosis by one surgery. BMC Urol. 2016;16(1):71. doi:10.1186/s12894-016-0184-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doizi S, Letendre J, Cloutier J, Ploumidis A, Traxer O. Continuous monitoring of intrapelvic pressure during flexible ureteroscopy using a sensor wire: a pilot study. World J Urol. 2021;39(2):555–561. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03216-w
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Xie D, Xiong R, et al. The application of suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent pressure control in treating upper urinary tract calculi on patients with a solitary kidney. Urology. 2018;111:44–47. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.042
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mourmouris P, Argun OB, Tzelves L, et al. Is robotic radical nephroureterectomy a safe alternative to open approach: the first prospective analysis. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2021;93(4):408–411. doi:10.4081/aiua.2021.4.408
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tzelves L, Skolarikos A, Mourmouris P, et al. Does the use of a robot decrease the complication rate adherent to radical cystectomy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing open with robotic counterparts. J Endourol. 2019;33(12):971–984. doi:10.1089/end.2019.0226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai MM, Aron M, Gill IS, et al. Flexible robotic retrograde renoscopy: description of novel robotic device and preliminary laboratory experience. Urology. 2008;72(1):42–46. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.01.076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desai MM, Grover R, Aron M, et al. Robotic flexible ureteroscopy for renal calculi: initial clinical experience. J Urol. 2011;186(2):563–568. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geavlete P, Saglam R, Georgescu D, et al. Robotic flexible ureteroscopy versus classic flexible ureteroscopy in renal stones: the initial Romanian experience. Chirurgia. 2016;111(4):326–329.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rassweiler J, Fiedler M, Charalampogiannis N, Kabakci AS, Saglam R, Klein JT. Robot-assisted flexible ureteroscopy: an update. Urolithiasis. 2018;46(1):69–77. doi:10.1007/s00240-017-1024-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, De la Rosette J, Somani BK. ‘Mini, ultra, micro’ - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 2016;8(2):142–146. doi:10.1177/1756287215617674
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ganesamoni R, Sabnis RB, Mishra S, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing laser lithotripsy with pneumatic lithotripsy in miniperc for renal calculi. J Endourol. 2013;27(12):1444–1449. doi:10.1089/end.2013.0177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chew BH, Matteliano AA, de Los Reyes T, Lipkin ME, Paterson RF, Lange D. Benchtop and initial clinical evaluation of the ShockPulse stone eliminator in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2017;31(2):191–197. doi:10.1089/end.2016.0664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlos EC, Wollin DA, Winship BB, et al. In vitro comparison of a novel single probe dual-energy lithotripter to current devices. J Endourol. 2018;32(6):534–540. doi:10.1089/end.2018.0143
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mykoniatis I, Pyrgidis N, Tzelves L, et al. Assessment of single-probe dual-energy lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies. World J Urol. 2023;41(2):551–565. doi:10.1007/s00345-023-04278-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geraghty RM, Davis NF, Tzelves L, et al. Best practice in interventional management of urolithiasis: an update from the European Association of Urology guidelines panel for urolithiasis 2022. Eur Urol Focus. 2023;9(1):199–208. doi:10.1016/j.euf.2022.06.014
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tzelves L, Somani B, Knoll T, et al. Level of knowledge on radiation exposure and compliance to wearing protective equipment: where do endourologists stand? An ESUT/EULIS survey. World J Urol. 2020;38(3):761–768. doi:10.1007/s00345-019-02807-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzelves L, Geraghty R, Lombardo R, et al. Duration of follow-up and timing of discharge from imaging follow-up, in adult patients with urolithiasis after surgical or medical intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis from the European Association of urology guideline panel on urolithiasis. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;9:188–198.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tzelves L, Berdempes M, Mourmouris P, Mitsogiannis I, Skolarikos A. Optimal delivery of follow-up care for the prevention of stone recurrence in urolithiasis patients: improving outcomes. Res Rep Urol. 2022;14:141–148. doi:10.2147/RRU.S277498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vassileva J, Zagorska A, Basic D, et al. Radiation exposure of patients during endourological procedures: IAEA-SEGUR study. J Radiol Prot. 2020;40(4):1390–1405. doi:10.1088/1361-6498/abc351
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vassileva J, Zagorska A, Karagiannis A, et al. Radiation exposure of surgical team during endourological procedures: International Atomic Energy Agency-South-Eastern European Group for urolithiasis research study. J Endourol. 2021;35(5):574–582. doi:10.1089/end.2020.0630
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tzelves L, Juliebø-Jones P, Manolitsis I, et al. Radiation protection measures during endourological therapies. Asian J Urol. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2022.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villa L, Haddad M, Capitanio U, et al. Which patients with upper tract urothelial carcinoma can be safely treated with flexible ureteroscopy with holmium: yAGLaser photoablation? Long-term results from a high volume institution. J Urol. 2018;199(1):66–73. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Somani BK, Moseley H, Eljamel MS, Nabi G, Kata SG. Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma (UT-TCC): evolution of a new technique. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2010;7(1):39–43. doi:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2009.12.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juliebø-Jones P, Beisland C, Gjengstø P, Baug S, Ulvik Ø. Ureteroscopy during pregnancy: outcomes and lessons learned over 4 decades at a tertiary center in Norway. Curr Urol. 2023;17(1):7–12. doi:10.1097/CU9.0000000000000157
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Somani BK, Dellis A, Liatsikos E, Skolarikos A. Review on diagnosis and management of urolithiasis in pregnancy: an ESUT practical guide for urologists. World J Urol. 2017;35(11):1637–1649. doi:10.1007/s00345-017-2037-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chapman RA, Somani BK, Robertson A, Healy S, Kata SG. Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis. Urology. 2014;83(5):1003–1005. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mehmi A, Jones P, Somani BK. Current status and role of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in endourology. Urology. 2021;148:26–31. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.09.022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar