ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2025
Comparison of encrustation between silicon-covered and polytetrafluoroethylene-covered metallic stent,
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2025. 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.
- Emerging strategies for biofilm disruption in recurrent urinary tract infections.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Review
- Optimal artificial urine formulations forFrontiers in urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare encrustation resistance between silicon- and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered metallic ureteral stents (MUS) in an MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 52 MUS were prepared: 26 silicon-covered and 26 PTFE-covered stents. Each sample was immersed in artificial urine inoculated with
resultsSilicon-covered stents showed a statistically significant reduction in weight gain due to encrustation compared to PTFE-covered stents (9.50±5.77 mg vs. 16.75±10.61 mg; p=0.004). Additionally, encrustation per unit length was lower in silicon-covered stents (0.76±0.45 mg/mm vs. 1.30±0.81 mg/mm; p=0.004). SEM and EDS analyses demonstrated lower calcium salt deposition on the silicon-covered stents, indicating greater resistance to encrustation.
conclusionsSilicon-covered MUS demonstrated superior resistance to encrustation compared to PTFE-covered stents, supporting silicon as a more suitable covering material for long-term MUS applications. This finding may lead to extended stent lifespans and a reduced frequency of stent replacements, benefiting both patients and healthcare systems.
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.