• 1
    Terachi T. Nation-wide survey on endoscopic surgery in Japan: 8th report. 7: Urological surgery. J. Jpn. Endosc. Surg. 2006; 11: 60015. (In Japanese.) (evidence level V)
  • 2
    Tanaka M, Naito S, Koga H et al. Survey on the trend of laparoscopic adrenalectomy in Kyushu district – 13th Kyushu Cooperative Urological Research. Nishinihon. J. Urol. 2004; 66: 73345. (In Japanese.) (evidence level V)
  • 3
    Assalia A, Gagner M. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Br. J. Surg. 2004; 91: 125974. (evidence level I)
  • 4
    Saunders BD, Doherty GM. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy for malignant disease. Lancet Oncol. 2004; 5: 71826. (evidence level I)
  • 5
    Moinzadeh A, Gill IS. Laparoscopic radical adrenalectomy for malignancy in 31 patients. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 51925. (evidence level V)
  • 6
    MacGillivray DC, Whalen GF, Malchoff CD, Oppenheim DS, Shichman SJ. Laparoscopic resection of large adrenal tumors. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2002; 9: 4805. (evidence level V)
  • 7
    Matsuda T, Baba S. Selection of approaches in laparoscopic adrenalectomy. Standard procedure for laparoscopic adrenalectomy: Report on 1st urological laparoscopic surgery workshop. Jpn. J. Endourol. ESWL. 1998; 11: 1323. (In Japanese.) (evidence level VI)
  • 8
    NIH. NIH state-of-the-science statement on management of the clinically inapparent adrenal mass (‘incidentaloma’). NIH Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements 2002; 19: 125. (evidence level I)
  • 9
    Gagner M, Pomp A, Heniford BT, Pharand D, Lacroix A. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: Lessons learned from 100 consecutive procedures. Ann. Surg. 1997; 226: 23846. (evidence level V)
  • 10
    Del Pizzo JJ, Shichman SJ, Sosa RE. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: The New York-Presbyterian Hospital experience. J. Endourol. 2002; 16: 5917. (evidence level IV)
  • 11
    Salomon L, Soulie M, Mouly P et al. Experience with retroperitoneal laparoscopic adrenalectomy in 115 procedures. J. Urol. 2001; 166: 3841. (evidence level V)
  • 12
    Imai T, Kikumori T, Ohiwa M, Mase T, Funahashi H. A case–controlled study of laparoscopic compared with open lateral adrenalectomy. Am. J. Surg. 1999; 178: 503. (evidence level IV)
  • 13
    Guazzoni G, Montorsi F, Bocciard A et al. Transperitoneal laparoscopic versus open adrenalectomy for benign hyperfunctioning adrenal tumors: A comparative study. J. Urol. 1995; 153: 1597600. (evidence level V)
  • 14
    Winfield HN, Hamilton BD, Bravo EL, Novick AC. Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: The preferred choice? A comparison to open adrenalectomy. J. Urol. 1998; 160: 3259. (evidence level V)
  • 15
    Iihara M, Suzuki R, Kawamata A et al. Adrenal-preserving laparoscopic surgery in selected patients with bilateral adrenal tumors. Surgery 2003; 134: 106672. (evidence level V)
  • 16
    Watanabe R, Kurumada S, Naitoh M, Takahashi K. Is the adrenal sparing effective? Macro or micronodules around the main adrenal lesion. Endocr. Surg. 2003; 20: 2414. (In Japanese.) (evidence level V)
  • 17
    Ishidoya S, Ito A, Sakai K et al. Laparoscopic partial versus total adrenalectomy for aldosterone producing adenoma. J. Urol. 2005; 174: 403. (evidence level V)
  • 18
    Matsuda T, Terachi T, Mikami O, Komatz Y, Yoshida O. Laparoscopic nephrectomy with lymphadenectomy for renal cell carcinoma: Initial two cases. Minim. Invasive Ther. 1993; 2: 2216. (evidence level V)
  • 19
    Ono Y, Sahashi M, Yamada S, Ohshima S. Laparoscopic nephrectomy without morcellation for renal cell carcinoma: Report of initial 2 cases. J. Urol. 1993; 150: 12224. (evidence level V)
  • 20
    McDougall E, Clayman RV, Elashry OM. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for renal tumor: The Washington University experience. J. Urol. 1996; 155: 11805. (evidence level IV)
  • 21
    Chan DY, Cadeddu JA, Jarrett TW, Marshall FF, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: cancer control for renal cell carcinoma. J. Urol. 2001; 166: 20959; discussion 2099–100. (evidence level IV)
  • 22
    Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Shalhav AL et al. Laparoscopic versus open radical nephrectomy: A 9-year experience. J. Urol. 2000; 164: 11539. (evidence level IV)
  • 23
    Saika T, Ono Y, Hattori R et al. Long-term outcome of laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for pathologic T1 renal cell carcinoma. Urology 2003; 62: 101823. (evidence level IV)
  • 24
    Walther MM, Lyne JC, Libutti SK, Linehan WM. Laparoscopic cytoreductive nephrectomy as preparation for administration of systemic interleukin-2 in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma: A pilot study. Urology 1999; 53: 496501. (evidence level IV)
  • 25
    Gill IS, Schweizer D, Hobart MG, Sung GT, Klein EA, Novick AC. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: The Cleveland clinic experience. J. Urol. 2000; 163: 166570. (evidence level IV)
  • 26
    Desai MM, Gill IS, Ramani AP, Matin SF, Kaouk JH, Campero JM. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy for cancer with level I renal vein involvement. J. Urol. 2003; 169: 48791. (evidence level V)
  • 27
    Fentie DD, Barrett PH, Taranger LA. Metastatic renal cell cancer after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: Long-term follow-up. J. Endourol. 2000; 14: 40711. (evidence level V)
  • 28
    Fenn NJ, Gill IS. The expanding indications for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. BJU Int. 2004; 94: 7615. (evidence level V)
  • 29
    Portis AJ, Yan Y, Landman J et al. Long-term followup after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J. Urol. 2002; 167: 125762. (evidence level IV)
  • 30
    Iwamura M, Tsumura H, Matsuda D, Kurosaka S, Yoshida K, Baba S. Port site recurrence of renal cell carcinoma following retroperitoneoscopic radical nephrectomy with manual extraction without using entrapment sac or wound protector. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 12345. (evidence level V)
  • 31
    Cadeddu JA, Ono Y, Clayman RV et al. Laparoscopic nephrectomy for renal cell cancer: Evaluation of efficacy and safety. A multicenter experience. Urology 1998; 52: 7737. (evidence level IV)
  • 32
    Nakada SY, Fadden P, Jarrard DF, Moon TD. Hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: Comparison to open radical nephrectomy. Urology 2001; 58: 51720. (evidence level IV)
  • 33
    Lee SE, Ku JH, Kwak C, Kim HH, Paick SH. Hand assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: comparison with open radical nephrectomy. J. Urol. 2003; 170: 7569. (evidence level IV)
  • 34
    Chen YT, Yang SS, Hsieh CH, Wang CC. Hand port-site metastasis of renal-cell carcinoma following hand-assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: Case report. J. Endourol. 2003; 17: 7715. (evidence level V)
  • 35
    Gill IS, Sung GT, Hobart MG et al. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract transitional cell carcinoma: The Cleveland Clinic experience. J. Urol. 2000; 164: 151322. (evidence level V)
  • 36
    Rassweiler JJ, Schulze M, Marrero R, Frede T, Palou Redorta J, Bassi P. Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma: Is it better than open surgery? Eur. Urol. 2004; 46: 6907. (evidence level V)
  • 37
    McNeill SA, Chrisofos M, Tolley DA. The long-term outcome after laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: A comparison with open nephroureterectomy. BJU Int. 2000; 86: 61923. (evidence level V)
  • 38
    Kawauchi A, Fujito A, Ukimura O, Yoneda K, Mizutani Y, Miki T. Hand assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephroureterectomy: Comparison with the open procedure. J. Urol. 2003; 169: 8904; discussion 894. (evidence level V)
  • 39
    Shalhav AL, Dunn MD, Portis AJ, Elbahnasy AM, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper tract transitional cell cancer: The Washington University experience. J. Urol. 2000; 163: 11004. (evidence level V)
  • 40
    Hsueh TY, Huang YH, Chiu AW, Shen KH, Lee YH. A comparison of the clinical outcome between open and hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2004; 94: 798801. (evidence level V)
  • 41
    Bariol SV, Stewart GD, McNeill SA, Tolley DA. Oncological control following laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: 7-year outcome. J. Urol. 2004; 172: 18058. (evidence level V)
  • 42
    Wolf JS Jr, Dash A, Hollenbeck BK, Johnston WK 3rd, Madii R, Montgomery JS. Intermediate followup of hand assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for urothelial carcinoma: Factors associated with outcomes. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 11027. (evidence level V)
  • 43
    Matin SF, Gill IS. Recurrence and survival following laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy with various forms of bladder cuff control. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 395400. (evidence level V)
  • 44
    McGinnis DE, Trabulsi EJ, Gomella LG, Strup SE. Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy: Description of technique. Tech. Urol. 2001; 7: 711. (evidence level V)
  • 45
    Jarrett TW, Chan DY, Cadeddu JA, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for the treatment of transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. Urology 2001; 57: 44853. (evidence level V)
  • 46
    El Fettouh HA, Rassweiler JJ, Schulze M et al. Laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy: Results of an international multicenter study. Eur. Urol. 2002; 42: 44752. (evidence level V)
  • 47
    Matsui Y, Ohara H, Ichioka K et al. Retroperitoneoscopy-assisted total nephroureterectomy for upper urinary tract transitional cell carcinoma. Urology 2002; 60: 10105. (evidence level V)
  • 48
    Klingler HC, Lodde M, Pycha A, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Marberger M. Modified laparoscopic nephroureterectomy for treatment of upper urinary tract transitional cell cancer is not associated with an increased risk of tumour recurrence. Eur. Urol. 2003; 44: 4427. (evidence level V)
  • 49
    Stifelman MD, Hyman MJ, Shichman S, Sosa RE. Hand-assisted laparoscopic nephroureterectomy versus open nephroureterectomy for the treatment of transitional-cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract. J. Endourol. 2001; 15: 3915; discussion 397. (evidence level IV)
  • 50
    Seifman BD, Montie JE, Wolf JS Jr. Prospective comparison between hand-assisted laparoscopic and open surgical nephroureterectomy for urothelial cell carcinoma. Urology 2001; 57: 1337. (evidence level V)
  • 51
    Yoshimura K, Ichioka K, Matsui Y, Terai A, Arai Y. Alteration of body configuration after retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy and nephroureterectomy. BJU Int. 2005; 95: 3848. (evidence level V)
  • 52
    Yoshino Y, Ono Y, Hattori R, Gotoh M, Kamihira O, Ohshima S. Retroperitoneoscopic nephroureterectomy for transitional cell carcinoma of the renal pelvis and ureter: Nagoya experience. Urology 2003; 61: 5338. (evidence level V)
  • 53
    Maldonado-Valadez R, Teber D, Erdogru T, Safi KC, Frede T, Rassweiler J. The impact of neoadjuvant hormonal therapy on the outcome of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A matched pair analysis. J. Urol. 2006; 175: 20926. (evidence level III)
  • 54
    Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD, Vallancien G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The lessons learned. J. Endourol. 2001; 15: 4418. (evidence level V)
  • 55
    Hoznek A, Salomon L, Olsson LE et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. The Creteil experience. Eur. Urol. 2001; 40: 3845. (evidence level IV)
  • 56
    Goeman L, Salomon L, De Taille AL et al. Long-term functional and oncological results after retroperitoneal laparoscopic prostatectomy according to a prospective evaluation of 550 patients. World J. Urol. 2006; 24: 2818. (evidence level V)
  • 57
    Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M et al. Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: Oncological and functional results after 700 procedures. J. Urol. 2005; 174: 12715. (evidence level V)
  • 58
    Rozet F, Galiano M, Cathelineau X, Barret E, Cathala N, Vallancien G. Extraperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A prospective evaluation of 600 cases. J. Urol. 2005; 174: 90811. (evidence level V)
  • 59
    Trabulsi EJ, Guillonneau B. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 10729. (evidence level I)
  • 60
    Soulie M, Salomon L, Seguin P et al. Multi-institutional study of complications in 1085 laparoscopic urologic procedures. Urology 2001; 58: 899903. (evidence level IV)
  • 61
    Vallancien G, Cathelineau X, Baumert H, Doublet JD, Guillonneau B. Complications of transperitoneal laparoscopic surgery in urology: Review of 1311 procedures at a single center. J. Urol. 2002; 168: 236. (evidence level V)
  • 62
    Tanaka M, Higashihara E, Harabayashi T et al. Survey on complications in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in Japan: Report of science committee of Japanese Society of Endourology and ESWL. Jpn. J. Endourol. ESWL. 2003; 16: 727. (In Japanese.) (evidence level VI)
  • 63
    Artibani W, Grosso G, Novara G et al. Is laparoscopic radical prostatectomy better than traditional retropubic radical prostatectomy? An analysis of peri-operative morbidity in two contemporary series in Italy. Eur. Urol. 2003; 44: 4016. (evidence level IV)
  • 64
    Roumeguere T, Bollens R, Vanden Bossche M et al. Radical prostatectomy: A prospective comparison of oncological and functional results between open and laparoscopic approaches. World J. Urol. 2003; 20: 3606. (evidence level IV)
  • 65
    Namiki S, Egawa S, Terachi T et al. Changes in quality of life in first year after radical prostatectomy by retropubic, laparoscopic, and perineal approach: Multi-institutional longitudinal study in Japan. Urology 2006; 67: 3217. (evidence level IV)
  • 66
    Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D, Seemann O, Frede T. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Functional and oncological outcomes. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2004; 14: 7582. (evidence level I)
  • 67
    Tooher R, Swindle P, Woo H, Miller J, Maddern G. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: A systematic review of comparative studies. J. Urol. 2006; 175: 20117. (evidence level I)
  • 68
    Salomon L, Sebe P, De la Taille A et al. Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Part I. BJU Int. 2004; 94: 23843. (evidence level IV)
  • 69
    Remzi M, Klingler HC, Tinzl MV et al. Morbidity of laparoscopic extraperitoneal versus transperitoneal radical prostatectomy versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2005; 48: 839. (evidence level IV)
  • 70
    Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A et al. Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2001; 166: 16624. (evidence level V)
  • 71
    Hara I, Kawabata G, Miyake H et al. Comparison of quality of life following laparoscopic and open prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J. Urol. 2003; 169: 20458. (evidence level V)
  • 72
    Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Katz R et al. Urinary continence and erectile function: A prospective evaluation of functional results after radical laparoscopic prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 2002; 42: 33843. (evidence level V)
  • 73
    Rassweiler J, Schulze M, Teber D et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Heilbronn technique: Oncological results in the first 500 patients. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 7614. (evidence level V)
  • 74
    Katz R, Salomon L, Hoznek A, de la Taille A, Antiphon P, Abbou CC. Positive surgical margins in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: The impact of apical dissection, bladder neck remodeling and nerve preservation. J. Urol. 2003; 169: 204952. (evidence level V)
  • 75
    Salomon L, Anastasiadis AG, Levrel O et al. Location of positive surgical margins after retropubic, perineal, and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2003; 61: 38690. (evidence level V)
  • 76
    Guillonneau B, el-Fettouh H, Baumert H et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Oncological evaluation after 1000 cases a Montsouris Institute. J. Urol. 2003; 169: 12616. (evidence level V)
  • 77
    Wolf JS Jr, Merion RM, Leichtman AB et al. Randomized controlled trial of hand-assisted laparoscopic versus open surgical live donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 2001; 72: 28490. (evidence level II)
  • 78
    Hsu TH, Su LM, Ratner LE, Trock BJ, Kavoussi LR. Impact of renal artery multiplicity on outcomes of renal donors and recipients in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Urology 2003; 61: 3237. (evidence level IV)
  • 79
    Troppmann C, Wiesmann K, McVicar JP, Wolfe BM, Perez RV. Increased transplantation of kidneys with multiple renal arteries in the laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy era: Surgical technique and surgical and nonsurgical donor and recipient outcomes. Arch. Surg. 2001; 136: 897907. (evidence level IV)
  • 80
    Su LM, Ratner LE, Montgomery RA et al. Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Trends in donor and recipient morbidity following 381 consecutive cases. Ann. Surg. 2004; 240: 35863. (evidence level V)
  • 81
    Jacobs SC, Cho E, Foster C, Liao P, Bartlett ST. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: The University of Maryland 6-year experience. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 4751. (evidence level V)
  • 82
    Leventhal JR, Kocak B, Salvalaggio PR et al. Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy 1997 to 2003: Lessons learned with 500 cases at a single institution. Surgery 2004; 136: 88190. (evidence level V)
  • 83
    Tanabe K, Miyamoto N, Tokumoto T et al. Retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy: Extended experience in a single center. Transplant. Proc. 2004; 36: 19179. (evidence level V)
  • 84
    Sundqvist P, Feuk U, Haggman M, Persson AE, Stridsberg M, Wadstrom J. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic live donor nephrectomy in comparison to open and laparoscopic procedures: A prospective study on donor morbidity and kidney function. Transplantation 2004; 78: 14753. (evidence level V)
  • 85
    Khauli RB, Hussein M, Shaar A et al. A prospective evaluation of laparoscopic donor nephrectomy versus open donor nephrectomy. Transplant. Proc. 2003; 35: 2552. (evidence level V)
  • 86
    Simforoosh N, Bassiri A, Ziaee SA et al. Laparoscopic versus open live donor nephrectomy: The first randomized clinical trial. Transplant. Proc. 2003; 35: 25534. (evidence level V)
  • 87
    El-Galley R, Hood N, Young CJ, Deierhoi M, Urban DA. Donor nephrectomy: A comparison of techniques and results of open, hand assisted and full laparoscopic nephrectomy. J. Urol. 2004; 171: 403. (evidence level V)
  • 88
    Tsuchiya N, Iinuma M, Habuchi T et al. Hand-assisted retroperitoneoscopic nephrectomy for living kidney transplantation: Initial 44 cases. Urology 2004; 64: 2504. (evidence level III)
  • 89
    Velidedeoglu E, Williams N, Brayman KL et al. Comparison of open, laparoscopic, and hand-assisted approaches to live-donor nephrectomy. Transplantation 2002; 74: 16972. (evidence level V)
  • 90
    Matas AJ, Bartlett ST, Leichtman AB, Delmonico FL. Morbidity and mortality after living kidney donation, 1999–2001: Survey of United States transplant centers. Am. J. Transplant. 2003; 3: 8304. (evidence level V)
  • 91
    Troppmann C, Ormond DB, Perez RV. Laparoscopic (vs open) live donor nephrectomy: A UNOS database analysis of early graft function and survival. Am. J. Transplant. 2003; 3: 1295301. (evidence level V)
  • 92
    Friedman AL, Peters TG, Jones KW, Boulware LE, Ratner LE. Fatal and nonfatal hemorrhagic complications of living kidney donation. Ann. Surg. 2006; 243: 12630. (evidence level IV)
  • 93
    Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter: A case diagnosed preoperatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br. J. Urol. 1949; 21: 20914. (evidence level V)
  • 94
    Janetschek G, Peschel R, Altarac S, Bartsch G. Laparoscopic and retroperitoneoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Urology 1996; 47: 3116. (evidence level V)
  • 95
    Ross JH, Kay R, Knippe NS, Streem SB. The absence of crossing vessels in association with ureteropelvic junction obstruction detected by prenatal ultrasonography. J. Urol. 1998; 160: 9735; discussion 994. (evidence level V)
  • 96
    Frauscher F, Janetschek G, Klauser A et al. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty for UPJ obstruction with crossing vessels: Contrast-enhanced color Doppler findings and long-term outcome. Urology 2002; 59: 5005. (evidence level V)
  • 97
    Parkin J, Evans S, Kumar PV, Timoney AG, Keeley FX. Endoluminal ultrasonography before retrograde endopyelotomy: Can the results match laparoscopic pyeloplasty? BJU Int. 2003; 91: 38991. (evidence level V)
  • 98
    Gupta M, Smith AD. Crossing vessels at the ureteropelvic junction: Do they influence endopyelotomy outcome? J. Endourol. 1996; 10: 1837. (evidence level V)
  • 99
    Schuessler WW, Grune MT, Tecuanhuey LV et al. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty. J. Urol. 1993; 150: 17959. (evidence level V)
  • 100
    Mandhani A, Goel S, Bhandari M. Is antegrade stenting superior to retrograde stenting in laparoscopic pyeloplasty? J. Urol. 2004; 171: 14402. (evidence level V)
  • 101
    Tan HL. Laparoscopic Anderson–Hynes dismembered pyeloplasty in children using needlescopic instrumentation. Urol. Clin. North Am. 2001; 28: 4351, viii. (evidence level V)
  • 102
    Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN et al. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: Assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J. Urol. 1999; 162 (3 Part 1): 6925. (evidence level IV)
  • 103
    Brooks JD, Kavoussi LR, Preminger GM, Schuessler WW et al. Comparison of open and endourologic approaches to the obstructed ureteropelvic junction. Urology 1995; 46: 7915. (evidence level V)
  • 104
    Soulie M, Thoulouzan M, Seguin P, Mouly P et al. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty with a minimal incision: Comparison of two surgical approaches. Urology 2001; 57: 4437. (evidence level V)
  • 105
    Bonnard A, Fouquet V, Carricaburu E, Aigrain Y, El-Ghoneimi A. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty in children. J. Urol. 2005; 173: 17103; discussion 1713. (evidence level V)
  • 106
    Klingler HC, Remzi M, Janetschek G, Kratzik C, Marberger MJ. Comparison of open versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty techniques in treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction. Eur. Urol. 2003; 44: 3405. (evidence level V)
  • 107
    Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J. Endourol. 2003; 17: 15560. (evidence level V)
  • 108
    Kaynan AM, Winfield HN. A transperitoneal laparoscopic approach to endourology. Curr. Urol. 2001; Reports, 2: 15464. (evidence level V)
  • 109
    Chen RN, Moore RG, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Indications, technique, and long-term outcome. Urol. Clin. North Am. 1998; 25: 32330. (evidence level V)