ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Application of omental covering technique in robot-assisted lingual mucosa graft ureteroplasty.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 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.
- Oral mucosa graft ureteroplasty: defining its role in complex ureteral reconstruction.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
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
Background: Omentum has a wide application value in ureteroplasty, however, some specific situations limit its clinical application. Therefore, we modified the application method of omentum and proposed a new method named omental covering (OC) technique. This study aims to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of OC technique in robot-assisted lingual mucosa graft ureteroplasty (RA-LMGU). Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 79 patients who underwent RA-LMGU between June 2021 and October 2024 at two hospitals. Patients were divided into two groups according to the method of omental application: the omental wrapping (OW) group and the OC group. Perioperative and follow-up data were collected. Results: A total of 79 patients were included, with 24 in the OW group and 55 in the OC group. The median ureteral stricture length was 4.3 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.7, 6.0] cm in the OW group and 3.0 (IQR, 2.1, 4.0) cm in the OC group (P<0.001). The median operative time was 181 (IQR, 139, 217) min in the OW group and 150 (IQR, 110, 198) min in the OC group (P=0.06). The median postoperative stay was 7 (IQR, 7, 8) days in the OW group and 6 (IQR, 5, 7) days in the OC group (P<0.001). The median follow-up time was 32 (IQR, 26, 39) months in the OW group and 11 (IQR, 4, 16) months in the OC group (P<0.001). It is worth noting that both groups achieved a 100% surgical success rate. Conclusions: These short-term follow-up results demonstrated that the OC technique is also safe and effective in ureteral repair and reconstruction using lingual mucosa graft and it can reduce postoperative stay.
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.