ArticleUrology annals
Balloon dilatation for failed pyeloplasty is it a valid alternate option in pediatric age group: A comparative retrospective study.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In pediatric patients, the preferred intervention following a failed pyeloplasty is a surgical challenge. Balloon dilatation is a minimally invasive option with low complication rates. However, redo-pyeloplasty provides workable and effective outcomes but is more technically demanding. The study demonstrates our experience with redo-pyeloplasty for previously failed pyeloplasty compared to balloon dilatation. Methodology: A total of 298 patients underwent pyeloplasty between 2013 and 2022. Out of these 19 patients (6%), aged 11 months to 12 years (median age 7 years) had failed pyeloplasty; 11 patients underwent redo-pyeloplasty (robotic in 63.6%[7] and laparoscopic in 36.4% [4]), and eight patients were treated with balloon dilatation. Ultrasound and renogram were performed to evaluate the patient's outcomes. Success was defined as improving hydronephrosis in 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up without an obstructed curve in renogram. The aim is to evaluate and assess the success rate and outcomes of redo-pyeloplasty compared to antegrade/retrograde balloon dilatation in pediatric patients with a previously failed pyeloplasty. Results: All patients who underwent redo pyeloplasty had successful outcomes (100%). However, of patients who underwent balloon dilatation, only 1 (12.5%) patient had a successful outcome, and seven patients (87%) did not show improvement. Patients' age, gender, and laterality of ureteropelvic junction obstruction were insignificant among both groups. Conclusion: We demonstrated that balloon dilatation has a meager success rate in managing failed pyeloplasty cases. Redo-pyeloplasty procedures, either robotic or laparoscopic, have the potential to offer superior results.
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.