1. Yavuz Guler and Akif Erbin. Comparison of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal pelvic and proximal ureteral stones ≤2 cm in children. 2020 Oct 1. doi: 10.4103/iju.IJU_116_20 PMCID: PMC7759164 PMID: 33376264

2. Tasian GE, Kabarriti AE, Kalmus A, Furth SL. Kidney stone recurrence among children and adolescents. J Urol. 2017;197:246–52

3. Jobs K, Rakowska M, Paturej A. Urolithiasis in the pediatric population - current opinion on epidemiology, patophysiology, diagnostic evaluation and treatment. Dev Period Med. 2018;22:201–8

4. Slavković A, Radovanović M, Sirić Z, Vlajković M, Stefanović V. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for cystine urolithiasis in children: Outcome and complications. Int Urol Nephrol. 2002;34:457–61

5. Khan M, Lal M, Kash DP, Hussain M, Rizvi S. Anatomical factors predicting lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. African J Urol. 2016;22:96–100

6. Park HK, Kim JH, Min GE, Choi WS, Li S, Chung KJ, et al. Change of trends in the treatment modality for pediatric nephrolithiasis: Retrospective analysis of a US-based insurance claims database. J Endourol. 2019;33:614–8

7. Elawady, H., Mahmoud, M. A., & Samir, M. (2021). Can we successfully predict the outcome for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for medium size renal stones? A singlecenter experience. Urologia Journal, 039156032110163. doi:10.1177/03915603211016355

8. Wolf JS Jr. Treatment selection and outcomes: ureteral calculi. Urol Clin N Am 2007; 34(3): 421–430

9. Yamashita S, Kohjimoto Y, Iguchi T, et al. Ureteral wall volume at ureteral stone site is a critical predictor for shock wave lithotripsy outcomes: comparison with ureteral wall thickness and area. Urolithiasis 2020; 48(4): 361–368

10. Hameed DA, Elgammal MA, ElGanainy EO, et al. Comparing non contrast computerized tomography criteria versus dual X-ray absorptiometry as predictors of radioopaque upper urinary tract stone fragmentation after electromagnetic shockwave lithotripsy. Urolithiasis 2013; 41: 511–515

11. El-Assmy A, Abou-el-Ghar ME, El-Nahas AR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography: role in determination of urinary stones composition and disintegration

12. Foda V, Abd eldaeim H, Youssif M, et al. Calculating the number of shock waves, expulsion time, and optimum stone parameters based on noncontrast computerized tomography characteristics. Urology 2013; 82(5): 1026–1031

13. Massoud AM, Abdelbary AM, Al-Dessoukey AA, et al. The success of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy based on the stone-attenuation value from non-contrast computed tomography. Arab J Urol 2014; 12(2): 155–161

14. Badran YA, Abdelaziz AS, Shehab MA, et al. Is scoring system of computed tomography based metric parameters can accurately predicts shock wave lithotripsy stone-free rates and aid in the development of treatment strategies? Urol Ann 2016; 8: 197–202

15. Perks AE, Schuler TD, Lee J, et al. Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2008; 72: 765–769

16. Pareek G, Armenakas NA, Panagopoulos G, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success based on body mass index and Hounsfield units. Urology 2005; 65: 33–3617. Ng CF, Siu DY, Wong A, et al. Development of a scoring system from non-contrast computerized tomography measurements to improve the selection of upper ureteral stone for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2009; 181: 1151–1157 18. Choi JW, Song PH and Kim HT. Predictive factors of the outcom

17. Ng CF, Siu DY, Wong A, et al. Development of a scoring system from non-contrast computerized tomography measurements to improve the selection of upper ureteral stone for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urology 2009; 181: 1151–1157

18. Choi JW, Song PH and Kim HT. Predictive factors of the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Korean J Urol 2012; 53: 424–443

19. Bandi G, Meiners RJ, Pickhardt PJ, et al. Stone measurement by volumetric threedimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int 2009; 103(4): 524–528

20. Falagario, Ugo Giovannia; Calò, Beppeb; Auciello, Marioa; Carrieri, Giuseppea; Cormio, Luigia. Advanced ureteroscopic techniques for the management of kidney stones. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000835

21. Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Campbell MF. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 11th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2015

22. Zafar FS, Lingeman JE. Value of laparoscopy in the management of calculi complicating renal malformations. J Endourol. 1996;10:379–383

23. Raj GV, Auge BK, Assimos D, et al. Metabolic abnormalities associated with renal calculi in patients with horseshoe kidney. J Endouol. 2004;18:157–161

24. Tepeler A, Sehgal PD, Akman T, et al. Factors afecting outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in horseshoe kidneys. Urology. 2014;84(6):1290–1294

25. Tunc L, Tokgoz H, Tan MO, et al. Stones in anomalous kidneys: results of treatment by shockwave lithotripsy in 150 patients. Int J Urol. 2004;11(10):831–836

26. Viola D, Anagnostou T, Thompson TJ, et al. Sixteen years of experience with stone management in horseshoe kidneys. Urol Int. 2007;78(3):214–218

27. Lee JW, Park J, Lee SB, Son H, Cho SY, Jeong H. Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones larger than 10 mm: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Urology. 2015;86:873e7

28. Guisti G, Proietti S, Peshechera R, et al. Sky is the limit for ureteroscopy: extending the indications and special circumstances. World J Urol. 2015;33:257–273

29. Laurian BD, Bhaskar KS, Etienne XK, et al. Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts>an in-vitro comparative analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;8(Suppl 4):S359–S370

30. Nagele U, Nicklas A (2016) Vacuum cleaner effect, purging effect, active and passive wash out: a new terminology in hydrodynamic stone retrival is arising–Does it affect our endourologic routine? World J Urol 34:143–144. doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1575

31. Nicklas AP, Schilling D, Bader MJ et al (2015) The vacuum cleaner effect in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. World J Urol 33:1847–1853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1541-4

32. Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L et al (2015) Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 43:563–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240- 015-0808-y

33. Karakan T, Kilinc MF, Doluoglu OG et al (2017) The modified ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy technique and comparison with standard nephrolithotomy: a randomized prospective study. Urolithiasis 45:209–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-016-0890-9

34. Song L, Chen Z, Liu T et al (2011) The application of a patented system to minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 25:1281–1286. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2011.0032

35. Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10:257–259 https://doi.org/10.1080/21681805.1976.11882084

36. Alken P, Hutschenreiter G, Gunther R, Marberger M (1981) Percutaneous stone manipulation. J Urol 125:463–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)55073-9

37. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.041