ZengG, ZhaoZ, WanSP, et al. Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for simple and complex renal caliceal stones: A comparative analysis of more than 10,000 cases. J Endourol, 2013; 27:1203–1208.
2.
OsmanM, Wendt-NordahlG, HegerK, et al. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access: Experience from over 300 cases. BJU Int, 2005; 96:875–878.
3.
AndonianS, ScoffoneCM, LouieMK, et al. Does imaging modality used for percutaneous renal access make a difference? A matched case analysis. J Endourol, 2013; 27:24–28.
4.
YamaguchiA, SkolarikosA, BuchholzNP, et al. Operating times and bleeding complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A comparison of tract dilation methods in 5,537 patients in the clinical research office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study. J Endourol, 2011; 25:933–939.
5.
LiLY, GaoX, YangM, et al. Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to less invasiveness? A prospective comparative study. Urology, 2010; 75:56–61.
6.
MichelMS, TrojanL, RassweilerJJ.Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol, 2007; 51:899–906.
7.
KnollT, WezelF, MichelMS, et al. Do patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective study. J Endourol, 2010; 24:1075–1079.
8.
MishraS, SharmaR, GargC, et al. Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int, 2011; 108:896–900.
9.
de la RosetteJ, AssimosD, DesaiM, et al. The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Global Study: Indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol, 2011; 25:11–17.
10.
BaderMJ, GratzkeC, SeitzM, et al. The “all-seeing needle”: Initial results of an optical puncture system confirming access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol, 2011; 59:1054–1059.
11.
GiustiG, PiccinelliA, TavernaG, et al. Miniperc?. No, thank you! Eur Urol, 2007; 51:810–815.
