| dc.contributor.author | Resorlu, Berkan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Issi, Yasar | |
| dc.contributor.author | Onem, Kadir | |
| dc.contributor.author | Germiyanoglu, Cankon | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2020-06-21T13:34:20Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2020-06-21T13:34:20Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2305-5839 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 2305-5847 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.03.02 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/13484 | |
| dc.description | WOS: 000384792100013 | en_US |
| dc.description | PubMed: 27047957 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MIP) are highly effective treatment options for lower pole stones up to 2 cm. Selecting the best treatment modality represents a controversial area in urology, because each treatment methods have their own advantages and disadvantages. Donaldson and co-workers have recently published a very comprehensive review and meta-analysis to compare the benefits and harms of SWL, RIRS and PNL techniques. | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | eng | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Ame Publ Co | en_US |
| dc.relation.isversionof | 10.21037/atm.2016.03.02 | en_US |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en_US |
| dc.subject | Lower pole | en_US |
| dc.subject | renal stone | en_US |
| dc.subject | treatment | en_US |
| dc.title | Management of lower pole renal stones: the devil is in the details | en_US |
| dc.type | article | en_US |
| dc.contributor.department | OMÜ | en_US |
| dc.identifier.volume | 4 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.issue | 5 | en_US |
| dc.relation.journal | Annals of Translational Medicine | en_US |
| dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
