Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31289951›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2019

Ureteral Obstruction After Endoscopic Treatment of Vesicoureteral Reflux: Does the Type of Injected Bulking Agent Matter?

Florian Friedmacher, Prem Puri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Primary vesicoureteral reflux.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. History of endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux.Pediatric surgery international · 2023
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Florian FriedmacherNational Children's Research Centre, Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. Florian.Friedmacher@nhs.net.
Prem PuriNational Children's Research Centre, Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
National Children’s Research Centre · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewEndoscopic injection of bulking agents for the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) has become a therapeutic alternative to antibiotic prophylaxis and ureteral reimplantation. Although considered as a safe and efficient procedure, several studies have reported cases of ureteral obstruction (UO) after endoscopic correction of VUR. This review article evaluates the present VUR literature to estimate the incidence of UO following endoscopic injection of different substances, while also discussing the impact of injection technique and implant volume. RECENT

findingsTwenty-five publications were identified that provided detailed information on 64 females and 32 males (age range, 7 months-48 years) that developed UO after endoscopic treatment of VUR using dextranomer/hyaluronic acid (Dx/HA), polyacrylate polyalcohol (PP), polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), calcium hydroxyapatite (CaHA), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), or collagen. There was some variation in the reported incidence of UO among these materials: Dx/HA (0.5-6.1%), PP (1.1-1.6%), PDMS (2.5-10.0%), CaHA (1.0%), and PTFE (0.3%). Postoperative UO was described following subureteric transurethral injection (STING), intraureteric hydrodistension implantation technique (HIT), combined HIT/STING and double HIT. The injected volume ranged widely, also depending on the type of bulking agent: Dx/HA (0.3-3.0 mL), PP (0.3-1.2 mL), PDMS (1.0-2.2 mL), CaHA (0.4-0.6 mL), and PTFE (1.5-2.0 mL). The timing of UO varied from immediately after the procedure to 63 months. Over half of patients showed asymptomatic hydroureteronephrosis on follow-up imaging, whereas the remaining presented with symptoms of acute UO or fever. UO remains a rare complication after endoscopic correction of VUR, generally reported in less than 1% of treated cases, which appears to be independent of the injected substance, volume, and technique. However, long-term follow-up is recommended as asymptomatic or delayed UO can occur, potentially leading to deterioration of renal function.

Indexed as

Acrylic ResinsAdolescentAdultBiocompatible MaterialsChildChild, PreschoolCollagenDextransDimethylpolysiloxanesDurapatiteEndoscopyFemaleHumansHyaluronic AcidInfantInjectionsAcrylic ResinsbaysilonBiocompatible MaterialsCollagendextranomer-hyaluronic acid copolymerDextransDimethylpolysiloxanesDurapatiteHyaluronic AcidPolytetrafluoroethyleneVantrisDefluxEndoscopyUreterUreteral obstructionVantrisVesicoureteral reflux

Identifiers

PMID31289951
OpenAlexW2956566700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.