Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33037521›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021

Laparoscopic and robotic ureteroplasty using onlay flap or graft for the management of long proximal or middle ureteral strictures: our experience and strategy.

Sida Cheng, Shubo Fan, Jie Wang, Shengwei Xiong, Xinfei Li, Yangyang Xu, Zhihua Li, Hua Guan, Peng Zhang, Hongjian Zhu and 5 more

Abstract readVideo-Audio Media
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. [Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft for complex ureteral stricture].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sida Cheng *Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1591-9581
Shubo Fan *Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Jie Wang *Department of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Shengwei XiongDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Xinfei LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Yangyang XuDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Zhihua LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Hua GuanDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Urology, Emergency General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Hongjian ZhuDepartment of Urology, Beijing Jiangong Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chen HuangDepartment of Urology, Beijing Jiangong Hospital, Beijing, China.
Lei ZhangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Kunlin YangDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. yangkunlin12345@163.com.
Xuesong LiDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China. pineneedle@sina.com.
Liqun ZhouDepartment of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Institute of Urology, Peking University, National Urological Cancer Center, No. 8 Xishiku St, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100034, China.
Peking University · CNNanjing Jiangning Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo present our experience of laparoscopic and robotic ureteroplasty using onlay flap or graft for the management of long proximal or middle ureteral strictures and summarize our treatment strategies for these challenging scenarios.

methodsFrom March 2018 to January 2020, 53 patients with long proximal/middle ureteral strictures (2-6 cm) who underwent laparoscopic or robotic onlay flap/graft ureteroplasty were retrospectively enrolled. Different reconstruction techniques were chosen based on our management strategy: pelvic flap (PF) was the first choice for proximal stricture if pelvic tissue was sufficient for repair, while appendiceal flap (AF) was preferred over oral mucosa graft for both proximal and middle strictures.

resultsA total of 28 PFs, 9 AFs and 16 lingual mucosa grafts (LMGs) onlay ureteroplasty were performed successfully, with 33 laparoscopic procedures and 20 robotic procedures being undertaken. No intraoperative complications or conversion occurred. The median stricture length was 4 cm (range 2-6 cm). Compared with laparoscopic procedures, robotic procedures showed significantly shorter operative time (P = 0.008), shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.011) but higher hospital cost (P < 0.001). At a mean follow-up of 12.8 months, the overall success rate was 94.3%. There was no difference in postoperative complications or the success rate between the approaches.

conclusionLaparoscopic and robotic onlay flap/graft ureteroplasty can be safe and feasible to repair long proximal/middle ureteral strictures while robotic procedures showed higher efficiency, faster recovery but higher cost. Our algorithmic strategies may provide beneficial references for their standardization and dissemination into clinical care.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresSurgical FlapsAgedConstriction, PathologicHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUreterUreteral ObstructionUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleAppendiceal flapLaparoscopic and robotic surgeryLingual mucosa graftLong proximal or middle ureteral stricturesOnlay ureteroplastyPelvic flap

Identifiers

PMID33037521
OpenAlexW3092550928

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.