ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2016
[Bladder augmentation and urinary diversion in children and adolescents].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitrofanoff procedure in children: use of the appendix and VQZ plasty seems to minimize complications.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Multidisciplinary management of people with spina bifida across the lifespan.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Review
- Challenges in pediatric urologic practice: a lifelong view.World journal of urology · 2021Review
- Current Indications and Techniques for the Use of Bowel Segments in Pediatric Urinary Tract Reconstruction.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn children and adolescents, the indication for continent urinary diversion or bladder augmentation is rare. Today, for most patients with a neurogenic bladder, conservative treatment (clean intermittent catheterization [CIC] and pharmacotherapy) is the method of choice, while for patients with bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex (BEEC), primary reconstruction is recommended. Only after failure of conservative treatment or primary reconstruction should bladder augmentation or urinary diversion be considered. Other rare indications include patients with malignant tumor involving the lower urinary tract (e. g., rhabdomyosarcoma). DISCUSSION: In patients with a hyperreflexive, small capacity, and/or low compliance bladder with a normal upper urinary tract, bladder augmentation (bowel segments/ureter) is an option. For those unable to perform CIC via the urethra, a continent cutaneous stoma should be offered. In patients with irreparable sphincter defects and normal renal function, a continent cutaneous diversion is an option and in those with a competent anal sphincter the rectosigmoid pouch can be offered.
conclusionIn this review, surgical options with their advantages and disadvantages are discussed.
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.