Re: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is smaller better?: Editorial comment

Jeffrey A Cadeddu

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.014

Re: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is smaller better?: Editorial comment

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1813
Number of pages	1
Journal	Journal of Urology
Volume	191
Issue number	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.014
State	Published - 2014

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Urology

Access to Document

10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.014

Cite this

@article{34164659847845308305a7ebe1e5934c,

title = "Re: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is smaller better?: Editorial comment",

author = "Cadeddu, {Jeffrey A}",

year = "2014",

doi = "10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.014",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "191",

pages = "1813",

journal = "Journal of Urology",

issn = "0022-5347",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re

T2 - A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is smaller better?: Editorial comment

AU - Cadeddu, Jeffrey A

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908208444&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908208444&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.014

DO - 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.014

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 25280294

AN - SCOPUS:84908208444

SN - 0022-5347

VL - 191

SP - 1813

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

IS - 6

ER -

Re: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial of 5-mm versus 3-mm ports for laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Is smaller better?: Editorial comment

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this