Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40654537›Full record

ReviewAdvances in urology2025

Ureteral Occlusion: Device Strategies, Approaches, and Results.

Benjamin Treutler, Sahana Kumar, Christopher Shallal, Aryaman Gupta, Sanjana Kumar, Nicholas Zhang, Sean Healy, Jayaram Mandavilli, Nehali Gupta, Elizabeth A Logsdon and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Benjamin TreutlerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sahana KumarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Christopher ShallalDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Aryaman GuptaDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6842-3315
Sanjana KumarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Nicholas ZhangDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Sean HealyDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jayaram MandavilliDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Nehali GuptaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Elizabeth A LogsdonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jordan ShuffCenter for Bioengineering, Innovation, and Design, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
E James WrightDepartment of Urology, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Clifford R WeissDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2180-1731

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genitourinary tract injuries can occur in the urinary tract or reproductive system as a result of trauma-related pelvic fractures, iatrogenic lacerations or ligations, and radiation therapy for reproductive or digestive malignancies. Although surgical reintervention is possible for large urinary tract injuries, a key component for healing smaller injuries is the ability to divert urine from the injury site to prevent urine-wound contact. This enables the injury to heal prior to reintervention and can eliminate the need for a secondary procedure, reducing the potential for complications. This type of urinary diversion is required by 140,000 patients in the United States annually, leading to the development of several devices to divert urine. The current standard of care includes minimally invasive procedures, such as placement of a catheter, double-J stent, or nephroureteral stent, but such measures often do not maintain sufficient dryness to enable wound healing. Based on a review of the literature, we have determined that successful devices need to prevent 100% of the anterograde urine flow, resist migration down the ureter because of peristalsis, and prevent urothelium growth over the device to promote wound healing without causing complications or necessitating reintervention. We also evaluated these devices according to the robustness of the study populations and designs in which they are reported. Some of the more successful devices include detachable, semicompliant balloons, platinum coils, and ureteral clips. Here, we present a narrative review of temporary and permanent ureteral occlusion devices and evaluate their potential for supporting wound healing. We also explore metrics by which to compare and select appropriate devices for urinary diversion.

Identifiers

PMID40654537
PMCPMC12255495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.