ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
A new technique for ureteral reconstruction using lingual mucosa grafts in a beagle model.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of lingual mucosa graft ureteroplasty in managing ureteric strictures: a systematic review.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- A new technique for ureteral reconstruction using a colonic mucosa graft in a beagle model.Asian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Minimally invasive (laparoscopic/robotic) ureteroplasty for long segment proximal and mid ureteral strictures.International urology and nephrology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the feasibility of ureteral reconstruction using lingual mucosa graft (LMG) and evaluate the histological changes of the engrafted LMG in beagles.
methodsTwelve male beagle dogs were randomly divided into groups A, B and C (n = 4). A ventral ureteral defect was created by excising half of the ureteral wall. The length of the defect was 3 cm, 6 cm, and 10 cm in groups A, B, and C, respectively. The LMGs were harvested and employed to repair the ureteral defects in onlay fashion. Two dogs per group were sacrificed after 6 months, with additional two dogs per group sacrificed after 12 months. Intravenous urography (IVU) and macroscopic examination were performed to evaluate renal function and ureteral patency. Histological changes in the engrafted LMGs during the tissue incorporation process were assessed by histological analysis.
resultsThere were no postoperative complications. Only one dog in group C developed a mild stricture near the proximal anastomosis. In the remaining 11 animals, IVU showed normal renal function and a wide ureteral caliber without stricture or fistula. The diameter of the LMG-reconstructed ureter was greater than that of the proximal and distal ureter (each p value < 0.01). The LMGs survived in situ with newly formed capillaries. The epithelium of the lingual mucosa resembled the urothelium in postoperative 12 months.
conclusionThis new technique for ureteral reconstruction using LMGs is feasible. This approach is a promising alternative clinical treatment for curing long ureteral strictures.
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.