ArticleCancer medicine2024
New clinical insights into the treatment of benign uretero-ileal anastomotic stricture following radical cystectomy and urinary diversion.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. 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.
- Robot-assisted radical cystectomy with the clinical application of "Y-shaped" end-to-side ureteral anastomosis in elderly and obese patients.BMC urology · 2025Article
- New clinical insights into the treatment of benign uretero-ileal anastomotic stricture following radical cystectomy and urinary diversion.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBenign uretero-ileal anastomotic stricture (UIAS) is a potentially serious complication that can arise after radical cystectomy (RC) and subsequent urinary diversion. To preserve residual renal function and improve prognosis, it is crucial to derive insights from experience and tailor individualized treatment strategies for different patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsFrom October 2014 to June 2021, a total of 47 patients with benign UIAS underwent endoscopic management (n = 19) or reimplantation surgery (n = 28). The basic data, perioperative conditions, and postoperative outcomes of the two groups were compared and analyzed to evaluate efficacy.
resultsComparing preoperative and postoperative clinical efficacy within the same group, the endoscopic group showed no significant differences in creatinine and blood urea nitrogen (BUN) levels before surgery or after extubation (p > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) levels on the affected side before surgery and after extubation (p < 0.05). In contrast, the laparoscopic reimplantation group did not exhibit significant differences in creatinine, BUN, or GFR levels of affected side before surgery and after extubation (p > 0.05). Postoperative clinical efficacy showed no significant difference in creatinine and BUN levels between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, GFR values of affected side in the endoscopic treatment group decreased more than those in the laparoscopic reimplantation group (p < 0.05). Additionally, the laparoscopic reimplantation group was able to remove the single-J tube earlier than the endoscopic treatment group (p < 0.05), had a lower recurrence rate of hydronephrosis after extubation (p < 0.05), and experienced a later onset of hydronephrosis compared to the endoscopic treatment group (p < 0.05).
conclusionsBased on our experience in treating UIAS following RC combined with urinary diversion, laparoscopic reimplantation effectively addresses the issue of UIAS, allowing for the removal of the ureteral stent relatively soon after surgery. This approach maintains long-term ureteral patency, preserves residual renal function, reduces the risk of ureteral restenosis and hydronephrosis, and has demonstrated superior therapeutic outcomes in this study.
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.