ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
Analysis of the efficacy and risk factors of surgical treatment of recurrent UPJO in adults.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenging recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstructions: endoscopic procedures versus redo-pyeloplasty-a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic tubular pyeloureteroplasty using flap and lingual mucosal graft: a case report and literature review.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Analysis of risk factors for stenosis after laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- Non-typical anti-GBM disease with intraglomerular granulomatous reaction and anti-PLA2R-negative membranous nephropathy in the context of IgM/κ paraproteinemia.International urology and nephrology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the efficacy of secondary pyeloplasty and balloon dilation and to analyze the risk factors for secondary surgical failure in patients with recurrent uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 65 patients with recurrent UPJO who underwent secondary surgery between September 2011 and March 2019, of whom 33 had complete baseline data and follow-up data. General clinical information, perioperative data, and follow-up results were collected from patients. Risk factors for surgical failure in patients with recurrent UPJO were analyzed using logistic regression.
resultsThe failure rates of secondary pyeloplasty and balloon dilation in secondary surgery were 16.7% and 33.3%, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that ureteral stenosis length and operative time were associated with secondary pyeloplasty and balloon dilatation failure (p < 0.05), and ureteral stenosis length was an independent risk factor for secondary pyeloplasty failure (OR = 0.074, 95% CI: 0.006-0.864, p = 0.038). In the balloon dilation group, treatment failure rates were significantly lower in patients with stenotic segment lengths less than 1 ± 0.32 cm than in patients with stenotic segment lengths greater than 1 ± 0.32 cm (p = 0.019).
conclusionsThe secondary pyeloplasty may provide better benefit. Ureteral stricture length is an independent risk factor for failure of secondary pyeloplasty and a potential risk factor for balloon dilatation. Operation time is a potential risk factor for pyeloplasty and balloon dilatation.
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.