ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2022
Evaluation of Galdakao-modified Valdivia position in endoscopic management of malignant ureteric obstruction.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2022. 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, 0 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMalignant ureteric obstruction (MUO) due to pelvic malignancies is challenging for endourological management and carries high failure rates for retrograde cystoscopic ureteric stenting.
methodsWe adopted Galdakao-modified Valdivia (GMV) position in the management of MUO in an operating room equipped with a C-arm fluoroscopy unit and an ultrasound device. We prospectively studied the added value of this approach in 50 cases who failed retrograde ureteric stenting.
resultsThirty-seven (74%) cases were done under a high level of spinal anesthesia. Mean operative time was 62 min. Antegrade ureteric stenting succeeded in 45/50 (90%) patients who failed retrograde ureteric stenting. GMV position facilitated simultaneous retrograde and antegrade management of MUO. Eight patients (16%) underwent auxiliary cystoscopic procedures to reduce the mass over the ureteric orifice (UO) guided by antegrade methylene blue or over a probing antegrade guidewire. Nephrostomy tube was inserted in the same setting in 16/50 (32%) cases. Antegrade flow of contrast to the bladder (P < 0.001) and ureteric kinks rather than tight stenosis or infiltration of UO (P = 0.014) were significantly associated with the success of antegrade ureteric stenting. No major complications were encountered.
conclusionGMV position is an ideal choice for management of MUO as it allows simultaneous access to the lower and the upper urinary systems to accomplish ureteric stenting either in a retrograde or an antegrade fashion as well as the ability to insert a nephrostomy tube in the same setting, thus shortening the inpatient care and this should be the standard of care in cases with MUO.
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.