ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2022
Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux after kidney transplantation: outcomes and predictive factors of clinical and radiological success.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to identify and describe the outcomes of different endoscopic treatments and the predictive factors affecting success in the treatment of symptomatic vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) after kidney transplantation.
methodsPatients who had undergone endoscopic injection treatment for symptomatic VUR detected by VCUG with at least 1-year follow-up were included in the study. Patients with dysfunctional and/or obstructive voiding patterns were excluded from the study. We retrospectively evaluated the patient's characteristics, operative information about the type of injection (one, two, or four-point) and the bulking agent (DX-HA, PPC), and perioperative data. Clinical success was defined as no febrile UTI, and radiological success was defined as the absence of VUR in VCUG 3 months after the operation. Clinical success, radiological success, and encountered complications were statistically analyzed.
resultsA total of 76 patients were included in this study. The one-point, two-point, and four-point injection technique was applied to 32 (42.1%), 13 (17.1%), and 31 (40.7%) of patients, respectively. PPC and DX-HA were used as bulking agents in 54 (71.1%) and 22 (28.9%) patients, respectively. The clinical success rate was 73.7% (n = 56). In logistic regression analysis, a significant efficacy of the four-point technique was observed in the univariate analysis of clinical success (p = 0.042). The radiological success rate was 40.8% (n = 31). In the logistic regression analysis, DX-HA and PPC radiological success was attained in 4 (18.1%) and 27 (50%) patients, respectively (p = 0.01). Ureterovesical junction (UV) stricture developed in 5 (6.5%) patients. There was no difference between injection techniques and bulking agents in terms of the development of UV stricture (p = 0.32; p = 0.08).
conclusionThe success of endoscopic treatment in patients with VUR after kidney transplantation can be increased by multiple injections. Furthermore, PPC can be used to obtain a higher radiological success.
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.