ArticleTurkish journal of urology2022
Crossing Vessel in Pelvi Ureteric Junction Obstruction: A Histopathological Analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can the inferior mesenteric artery cause ureteropelvic junction obstruction?Radiology case reports · 2024Article
- Crossing Vessels in Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Anatomy and Outcomes.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
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
objectiveThe aim of the study is to identify whether crossing vessel is a cause or an associated finding in Pelvi Ureteric Junction Obstruction. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis is a prospective study of a total of 128 patients who underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty from January 2016 to June 2020. All patients who underwent laparoscopic pyeloplasty and pelvi ureteric junction segments were sent for histopathological examination. The presence of crossing vessels is documented intraoperative and patients were divided into two groups, group 1 having pelvi ureteric junction obstruction with crossing vessel, and group 2, pelvi ureteric junction obstruction without crossing vessels. Histopathological examination findings of pelvi ureteric junction segment including inflammation, fibrosis, muscle hypertrophy, muscle disarray, and synaptophysin were recorded. Unpaired Student t-test was used for comparing differences between continuous normally distributed data from 2 samples and non-parametric tests were applied for continuous data.
resultsOf the total 128 patients, crossing vessels were identified in 42 (32.8%), and 86 (67.2%) were without crossing vessels. The demographic profile of patients between the 2 groups was comparable. On histopathological examination, moderate-to-severe chronic inflammation was seen in 23.8% and 44.2% (P > .05) in group 1 and group 2, respectively; fibrosis and muscular hypertrophy were higher in group 2 but statistically insignificant (P > .05), and muscle disarray was higher in group 1 but statistically insignificant (P > .05). Synaptophysin was positive in 4.8% and 4.7% in group 1 and group 2, respectively.
conclusionThe differences in histopathological examination between the 2 groups were not statistically significant. However, in patients with crossing vessels, there was a higher degree of inflammation, which may lead to early pelvi ureteric junction obstruction.
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.