ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2013
Alternatives to conventional enterocystoplasty in children: a critical review of urodynamic outcomes.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ureterocystoplasty in Boys with Valve Bladder Syndrome-Is This Method Still up to Date?Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Experience with detrusorotomy in children by open and robotic approach.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- UTI in kidney transplant.World journal of urology · 2020Review
- Surgical Management of Neurogenic Sphincter Incompetence in Children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Review
- Editorial: Progress in Pediatric Urology in the Early 21st Century.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Article
- Recent Advances in Urinary Tract Reconstruction for Neuropathic Bladder in Children.F1000Research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Alternatives to conventional enterocystoplasty have been developed in order to avoid the most common complications derived from contact of the urine with intestinal mucosa. In this article critically we review the literature on the topics: ureterocystoplasty, detrusorectomy, detrusorotomy, seromuscular gastroenterocystoplasty, use of off the shelf biomaterials, and bladder augmentation by bioengineering. Recognizing the difficulty of deciding when a child with a history of posterior urethral valves requires and augmentation and that the development of a large megaureter in cases of neurogenic dysfunction represents a failure of initial treatment, we conclude that ureterocystoplasty can be useful in selected cases when a large dilated ureter is available. Seromuscular colocystoplasty lined with urothelium (SCLU) has been urodynamically effective in several series when the outlet resistance is high and no additional intravesical procedures are necessary. Seromuscular gastrocystoplasty lined with urothelium seems to offer no distinct advantages and involves a much more involved operation. The use of seromuscular segments without urothelial preservation, with or without the use of an intravesical balloon has been reported as successful in two centers but strict urodynamic evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. The published evidence argues strongly against the use of detrusorectomy or detrusorotomy alone because of the lack of significant urodynamic benefits. Two recent reports discourage the use of small intestinal submucosa patches because of a high failure rate. Finally, research into the development of a bioengineered bladder constructed with cell harvested from the same patient continues but is fraught with technical and conceptual problems. In conclusion of the methods reviewed, only ureterocystoplasty and SCLU have been proven urodynamically effective and reproducible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.