ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Antegrade double-J stenting as an alternative to the retrograde approach: experience of the first 150 cases at a single center in Brazil.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo present our clinical experience with percutaneous antegrade ureteral stenting. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a single-center retrospective study in which we reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent percutaneous image-guided antegrade ureteral stenting between January 2016 and August 2020. We evaluated 90 patients (48 men). The mean age was 61.4 ± 15 years (range, 30-94 years). Patients were divided into two main groups: those with malignant neoplasms; and those with non-neoplastic disease. Technical and clinical success of the procedure were defined, respectively, as maintenance of the patency of the urinary tract, with a reduction in the degree of hydronephrosis, and as a reduction in the level of nitrogenous waste. Postprocedural complications were categorized as major or minor according to the CIRSE classification.
resultsThe study sample comprised 150 antegrade stenting procedures performed in 90 patients, most of whom had previously undergone retrograde stenting that was unsuccessful. The stenting was bilateral in 60 patients and unilateral in 30. Technical success was achieved in 143 (95.3%) of the procedures, whereas seven procedures (4.6%) were unsuccessful. Failed procedures were characterized by inability to place a stent or migration of a stent after its placement. Complications occurred in 12 (8.0%) of the procedures. Of those 12 complications, two were classified as major (bleeding) and 10 were classified as minor (lumbar pain or infection). The most common techniques used were the over-the-wire technique and the modified technique (in 58.0% and 42.0% of the cases, respectively). In seven cases (4.7%), a nephrostomy tube was inserted.
conclusionPercutaneous antegrade ureteral stenting is a safe, effective method for the management of ureteral injuries and obstructions, due to malignant or benign causes, when the retrograde approach has failed.
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.