ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Robotic ureteral reconstruction of non-absorbable clip erosion into the ureter: a case series.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Delayed migration of non-absorbable surgical clips into the urinary tract is a rare but potentially morbid complication that may lead to pain, infection, stone formation, and urinary obstruction. The literature on clip erosion into the upper tracts are limited to a handful of case reports of case reports. The purpose of our study was to review outcomes of robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) of non-absorbable clip erosion into the ureter. Case Description: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent RUR for management of clip erosion into the ureter between September 2022-April 2024 at our tertiary academic center. Indication for surgery was ureteral obstruction. Six patients underwent RUR for clip erosion into the ureter. All patients had non-absorbable clip erosion from a prior urologic surgery. The median length of time between placement of non-absorbable clip and diagnosis of erosion was 90.5 months (IQR, 48.4-219.1). When clip erosion involved ≥80% of the circumference of the ureter, we utilized a transecting technique. As such, two patients underwent ureteral reimplantation with adjunctive maneuvers such as a psoas hitch or Boari flap. When clip erosion involved <80% of the circumference of the ureter, we utilized a non-transecting technique utilizing buccal mucosa graft for four patients. The median operative time was 157 minutes (IQR, 132-318), estimated blood loss was 50 cc (IQR, 31.25-318) and length of stay was 1 day (IQR, 1-1). There were no major (Clavien >2) postoperative complications. At a median follow up of 14.8 months (IQR, 10.1-18.7), all patients achieved surgical success, defined as the absence of obstructive flank pain and ureteral obstruction on functional imaging. Conclusions: Diagnosis of clip erosion into the ureter is generally delayed. RUR for non-absorbable clip erosion into the ureter is associated with low morbidity and excellent outcomes. When possible, we recommend utilization of interposing a fat flap to minimize the risk of erosion into the upper tracts.
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.