Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Urology
Volume 2016, Article ID 6267953, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6267953
Review Article

The Single Wire Ureteral Access Sheath, Both Safe and Economical

Columbia University Division of Urology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, 4302 Alton Road, Suite 540, Miami Beach, FL 33140, USA

Received 15 July 2016; Accepted 19 October 2016

Academic Editor: Jason M. Hafron

Copyright © 2016 Joan C. Delto et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. O. L'Esperance, W. O. Ekeruo, C. D. Scales Jr. et al., “Effect of ureteral access sheath on stone-free rates in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management of renal calculi,” Urology, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 252–255, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. G. Wendt-Nordahl, L. Trojan, P. Alken, M.-S. Michel, and T. Knoll, “Ureteroscopy for stone treatment using new 270° semiflexible endoscope: in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical application,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1439–1444, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. R. H. Shin, M. E. Lipkin, and G. M. Preminger, “Disposable devices for RIRS: where do we stand in 2013? What do we need in the future?” World Journal of Urology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 241–246, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. R. A. Chapman, B. K. Somani, A. Robertson, S. Healy, and S. G. Kata, “Decreasing cost of flexible ureterorenoscopy: single-use laser fiber cost analysis,” Urology, vol. 83, no. 5, pp. 1003–1005, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. L. Chu, C. A. Farris, A. T. Corcoran, and T. D. Averch, “Preoperative stent placement decreases cost of ureteroscopy,” Urology, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 309–313, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. B. K. Somani, A. Robertson, and S. G. Kata, “Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures,” Urology, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 528–530, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. O. A. Raheem, H. S. Mirheydar, D. L. Miller, K. L. Palazzi, D. C. Chang, and R. L. Sur, “Contemporary trends in the ambulatory surgical treatment of urolithiasis: population-based analysis,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1189–1192, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. De, C. Sarkissian, F. C. M. Torricelli, R. Brown, and M. Monga, “New ureteral access sheaths: a double standard,” Urology, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 757–763, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. A. Breda, E. Emiliani, F. Millan et al., “The new concept of ureteral access sheath with guidewire disengagement: one wire does it all,” World Journal of Urology, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 603–606, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  10. K. C. Hubert and J. S. Palmer, “Passive dilation by ureteral stenting before ureteroscopy: eliminating the need for active dilation,” Journal of Urology, vol. 174, no. 3, pp. 1079–1080, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. L. Chu, K. M. Sternberg, and T. D. Averch, “Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy,” Journal of Endourology, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 751–754, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. J. M. Shields, V. G. Bird, R. Graves, and O. Gómez-Marín, “Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on outcome of ureteroscopic treatment for urinary lithiasis,” Journal of Urology, vol. 182, no. 6, pp. 2768–2774, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus