ArticlePediatric surgery international2025
A comparative study of endoscopic balloon dilatation and laparoscopic ureteral replantation in the treatment of primary obstructive megaureter.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSurgical intervention may be required in some children with primary obstructive megaureter (POM) and laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation (LUR) is regarded as the standard approach. With the recent development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) has gained popularity. We sought to describe our initial experience with EBD in treating POM, and to compare efficiency and safety with the LUR.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed on children who underwent EBD or LUR between January 2019 and July 2021. Patient demographics, clinical manifestation and perioperative parameters, complications and primary outcomes were analyzed.
resultsA total of 6 patients underwent EBD and 13 underwent LUR during the study period. There were no significant differences in the demographics, clinical manifestation and pre-operative renal function between the EBD and the LUR groups. Although the EBD series was associated with shorter operative time (p < 0.001), less blood loss (p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative hospitalization (p < 0.001), patients undergoing LUR had a higher success rate (p < 0.01).
conclusionsOur preliminary results suggested that the EBD, though more non-invasive, seems less effective in the surgical management of POM. The "one size fits all" approach of EBD does not work with POM. Perhaps the EBD is not effective for all children with POM, but for some specific subtypes. Further studies were needed to better clarify the optimal indications of EBD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40679641What 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.