KIDNEY STONE CENTER PUBLISHED PAPERS - Effect of Stone and Collecting System surface Areas and Cost Effectiveness of Treatment (J Endourology 9 (1):9-13,1995
- Cost effectiveness of different treatment options for staghorn calculi >(J Urology156:1567,1996)
- Cost effectiveness of surgical stone removal. In Urolithiasis 1996 (Proceedings VIIIth International Symposium On Urolithiasis)
- Prevalence of metabolic stone disease in patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy In Urolithiasis 1996 (Proceedings VIIIth International Symposium on Urolithiasis)
- Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for solitary lower pole renal calculi (J Urology159:24-27, 1998)
- Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutanious nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy (J Endourology 12:113-119,1998)
- 10-year experience with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the State of Colorado(J Endourology 14(9): 711-714, 2000)
- Comparison of intravenous sedation vs. general anesthesia on the efficacy of the Doli-50 lithotriptor (J Urology 168:35-37,2002)
- A randomized outcomes trial of ureteral stents for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy of solitary kidney or proximal ureteral stones. (J Urology 167:1981-83,2002
- Is lower pole calyceal anatomy predictive of initial treatment or re-treatment success for extracoropreal shockwave lithotripsy of primary lower pole stone? (J Urology 168:2377-2382,2002
- Is stone radiodensity predictive of ESWL success for stones < 2 cm within the kidney? In Kidney Stones in and Out (Proceedings 10th International Symposium in Urolithiasis)
- Impact of treatment rate on the efficacy of ESWL for solitary renal stone between 1 and 2 cm(Proceedings 10th International Symposium on Urolithiasis)
- Is stone radiodensity a useful parameter to predict outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (International Brazilian J Urology V 31(1):3-9 Jan Feb 2005)
- Effect of slow treatment rate of ESWL for solitary stones 10 to 20 mm in size (J Urology 2006 V175 I4 pp1370-1374).
|