References
1. Scales CD, Jr., Smith AC, Hanley JM, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):160-5.
2. Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Reviews in urology. 2010;12(2-3):e86-96.
3. de la Rosette J, Denstedt J, Geavlete P, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 11,885 patients. J Endourol. 2014;28(2):131-9.
4. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):475-82.
5. Berardinelli F, Cindolo L, De Francesco P, et al. The surgical experience influences the safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones: a propensity score analysis. Urolithiasis. 2017;45(4):387-92.
6. Cumpanas AA, Ferician OC, Latcu SC, et al. Ethical, legal and clinical aspects of live surgery in urology - contemporary issues and a glimpse of the future. Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques. 2017;12(1):1-6.
7. Collins JW, Akre O, Wiklund PN. Re: Walter Artibani, Vincenzo Ficarra, Ben J. Challacombe, et al. EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur urol 2014; 66:87-97. Eur Urol.2014; 66(6):e121-2.
8. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Annals of surgery. 2004;240(2):205-13.
9. Oguz U, Resorlu B, Ozyuvali E, et al. A. Categorizing intraoperative complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery. Urol Int. 2014;92(2):164-8. doi: 10.1159/000354623. Epub 2014 Feb 6.
10. Xu Y, Min Z, Wan SP, et al. Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system. Urolithiasis. 2018 Apr;46(2):197-202. doi: 10.1007/s00240-017-0961-6. Epub 2017 Feb 24.
11. Duty B, Okhunov Z, Friedlander J, et al. Live surgical demonstrations: an old, but increasingly controversial practice. Urology. 2012;79(5):1185.e7-11.
12. Ogaya-Pinies G, Abdul-Muhsin H, Palayapalayam-Ganapathi H, et al. Safety of Live Robotic Surgery: Results from a Single Institution. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(4):693-697.
13. Khan SA, Chang RT, Ahmed K, et al. Live surgical education: a perspective from the surgeons who perform it. BJU Int. 2014;114(1):151-8.
14. Pryor F, Messmer PR. The effect of traffic patterns in the OR on surgical site infections. AORN journal. 1998;68(4):649-60.
15. Mullins JK, Borofsky MS, Allaf ME, et al. Live robotic surgery: are outcomes compromised? Urology. 2012;80(3):602-7.
16. Misrai V, Guillot-Tantay C, Pasquie M, et al. Comparison of Outcomes Obtained After Regular Surgery Versus Live Operative Surgical Cases: Single-centre Experience with Green Laser Enucleation of the Prostate. Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5(3):518-524.
17. Rocco B, Grasso AAC, De Lorenzis E, et al. Live surgery: highly educational or harmful? World J Urol. 2018;36(2):171-5.
18. Artibani W, Ficarra V, Challacombe BJ, et al. EAU policy on live surgery events. Eur Urol. 2014;66(1):87-97.