ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2016
Secondary surgery for vesicoureteral reflux after failed endoscopic injection: Comparison to primary surgery.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAs endoscopic treatment for vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) has increased, secondary ureteral reimplantation (UR) after failure of endoscopic treatment has increased. We studied the clinical feature and efficacy of secondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment compared with primary UR. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty-one children who had UR for VUR were enrolled. Charts were reviewed retrospectively for age, sex, grade of VUR before surgery, operative time, hospitalization period, postoperative complication, and success rate. Primary UR (group A, n=64) was compared with secondary UR after failed endoscopic treatment (group B, n=17). In group B, telephone survey for the satisfaction of endoscopic treatment and surgery was done.
resultsMean age of each group was 49.6±37.1 and 56.6±22.5 months (p=0.236). There was no significant difference between each group in sex, mean operative time, postoperative transfusion, complication rate, and success rate. As telephone survey in group B, eleven responders preferred endoscopic treatment as primary treatment of VUR because it was a simple method and no hospitalization.
conclusionsSecondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment was similar to primary UR. Parents preferred endoscopic treatment as first line treatment for VUR in spite of the need for secondary UR after failure of endoscopic treatment.
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.