ArticleEuropean urology open science2023
Ureteroscopy in Patients with Urinary Diversion: Outcomes and Lessons Learned from Two European Centres.
Article in European urology open science, 2023. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ureteroscopy (URS) in patients with urinary diversion is technically challenging. Common difficulties include anastomotic strictures, tortuosity, and failure to cannulate the ureteric orifice. There are few studies reporting outcomes in this special population. Objective: Our aim was to report outcomes at two tertiary centres in Europe. Design setting and participants: A multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted between 2010 and 2022. Intervention: URS (antegrade and retrograde) procedures carried out in patients with urinary diversions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Outcomes of interest included success at cannulating the ureteric orifice, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify potential predictors for success at cannulating the ureteric orifice and success at completing the intended procedure in a single session. Results and limitations: Fifty patients underwent 72 URS procedures, with most (86%) undergoing a retrograde approach. The majority (82%) of patients had undergone ileal conduit. Wallace was the commonest anastomosis type (64%). Ureteric anastomosis was cannulated successfully in 81% of cases. The most common reason for cannulation failure was the inability to identify the ureteric orifice (11%). A multivariable analysis revealed that an endourologist performing the case was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of cannulation success compared with consultants (odds ratio 25.9, Conclusions: Endourological experience increases the likelihood of successful ureteric cannulation and procedural success. A low complication rate can be achieved despite this being a population with often multiple comorbidities. Patient summary: Patients with previous bladder reconstructive surgery can undergo ureteroscopy with good outcomes. Surgeon experience increases the likelihood of treatment 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.