ArticleJournal of surgical case reports2025
A case report of minimally invasive management of congenital retrocaval ureter.
Article in Journal of surgical case reports, 2025. 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.
- Experience With Surgical Correction of Retrocaval Ureter: A Report of Two Cases From Northern Tanzania.Clinical case reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retrocaval ureter (RU) is a rare congenital malformation where the ureteric pathway is altered, passing posteriorly around the inferior vena cava (IVC). Occasionally, this leads to the IVC compressing the ureter, resulting in obstruction. In this report, we discuss a male who presented with severe right-sided flank pain and was otherwise well with no significant medical, urological, or birth history. Initial imaging revealed severe right-sided hydroureter with distinct obstruction point, and likely RU. Anecdotal and small centre cases of acute management and laparoscopic RU repair were reviewed. Initial management focused on pain control requiring a nephrostomy with subsequent transperitoneal laparoscopic dissection and repair. Operative time was 138 min with 50 mL blood loss. Post-operatively the patient recovered well and was symptom free at 6 month follow up ultrasound. Similarly, most reviewed cases chose a trans-peritoneal laparoscopic approach with good outcomes.
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.