English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Comparison of Single-use Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (SF-URS) with Reusable Fiberoptic Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (RF-URS) is one of the most popular subject in Endourology. Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) is the gold standard method used in the treatment of kidney and ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm and together with ESWL.SF-URS has been widely used along with RF-URS. Our study aims to analyze retrospectively RF-URS and SF-URS in terms of effectiveness, reliability and cost. 200 patients who underwent F-URS due to renal stones were included in our study. Patients were divided into 2 groups: 100 patients who underwent SF-URS and 100 patients who underwent RF-URS. Mean age of the two groups was 49.58, 50.24 in the RF-URS and SF-URS groups, respectively. The presence of hypertension and diabetes, Body Mass-Index (BMI), and stone characteristics were recorded, and postoperative stone-free rates, duration of hospital stay, duration of operation, postoperative hemoglobin loss, postoperative urosepsis, and auxiliary procedures were evaluated. A cost effective analysis was carried out. The demographic data and stone characteristics of both groups were similar and there was no statistically significant difference (p> 0.05). The SF-URS group was found to be more advantageous in terms of the duration of operation (p0.05). The RF-URS group was found to be more advantageous after a cost-effective analysis (p

Comparison of single-use flexible URS and re-usable flexible URS: Effectiveness, reliability, cost-efficiency analysis