ArticleBMC urology2024
Minimally invasive versus open ileal ureter with ileocystoplasty: comparative outcomes and 5-year experience.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reverse seven ileal ureteroplasty with ileocystoplasty for bilateral radiation ureteral obstruction and a contracted bladder.Urology case reports · 2026Article
- Single-port robotic ileal ureter reconstruction: feasibility, technique, and early outcomes.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Health-related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Ileal Ureter Replacement for Extensive Ureteral Stricture: A Prospective Multi-institutional Study.European urology open science · 2026Article
- Bilateral ureteral reconstruction with U-shaped ileal interposition segment.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo present the experience of ileal ureter with ileocystoplasty (IUC), and compare the outcomes of IUC in minimally invasive procedures to open procedures. PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom December 2017 to April 2023, twenty patients underwent IUC in open or minimally invasive (including laparoscopic and robotic) procedures. The baseline characteristics, perioperative data and follow-up outcomes were collected. Success was defined as relief of clinical symptoms, stable postoperative serum creatine and absence of radiographic obstruction. The perioperative and follow-up outcomes of open procedures and minimally invasive procedures were compared.
resultsThe etiology included pelvic irradiation (14/20), urinary tuberculosis (3/20) and surgical injury (3/20). Bilateral ureter strictures were repaired in 15 cases. The surgeries conducted consisted of open procedures in 9 patients and minimally invasive procedures in 11 patients. Compared to open procedures, minimally invasive surgeries had less median estimated blood loss (EBL) (100 ml vs. 300 min, p = 0.010) and shorter postoperative hospitalization (27 d vs. 13 d, p = 0.004). Two patients in the open group experienced grade 3 complications (sigmoid fistula and acute cholecystitis in one patient, and pulmonary embolism in another patient). Over a median follow-up period of 20.1 months, the median bladder functional capacity was 300 ml, with a 100% success rate of IUC.
conclusionIUC is feasible in both open and minimally invasive procedures, with acceptable complications and a high success rate. Minimally invasive procedures can have less EBL and shorter postoperative hospitalization than open procedure. However, prospective studies with larger groups and longer follow-up are needed.
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.