ReviewBMC urology2025
Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single center experience and a review of the literature.
Review in BMC urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Challenging recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstructions: endoscopic procedures versus redo-pyeloplasty-a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Multimodal treatment for failed pyeloplasty: Description of a new technique.Urology case reports · 2026Article
- Simultaneous Mini-ECIRS and low-energy TFL endopyelotomy for recurrent UPJO with pelvic renal calculus: A case report.Urology case reports · 2025Article
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
backroundTo describe and analyze our experience with secondary (redo) laparoscopic pyeloplasty (rLP) in managing recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) following primary pyeloplasty, and to compare our outcomes with those reported in the existing literature.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent rLP for recurrent UPJO. Baseline characteristics, detailed histories of previous pyeloplasties, operative profiles, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Furthermore, a comprehensive literature review was performed using PubMed.
resultsThe study included eight patients (four men, four women) with a mean age of 27 years who underwent rLP. Among them, three had left-side and five had right-side involvement. Three patients had undergone open pyeloplasty, three laparoscopic pyeloplasty, one robot-assisted pyeloplasty, and one laparoscopic pyeloplasty and failed salvage endopyelotomy. Recurrent UPJO etiologies were recurrent stenosis (five cases), fibrosis and adhesions (two cases), and a combination of fibrosis, adhesions, and high insertion (one case). No crossing vessels were involved. Seven patients were treated using the dismembered technique, and one with Y-V plasty. The mean operation time was 185 min (range 150-240), and all procedures were completed laparoscopically. No blood transfusions were required intra- or postoperatively. The mean hospital stay was 2.8 days (range 2-4). Two patients (25%) experienced postoperative complications (one Clavien grade II and one Clavien grade IIIa). The mean follow-up period was 39 months (range 18-78), with a success rate of 87.5%.
conclusionsThis study contributes additional evidence that rLP is an effective and reliable treatment for secondary UPJO, achieving high success rates despite its technical challenges.
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.