ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2025
Retrocaval ureter: a narrative review.
Review 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.
- Laparoscopic Retroperitoneal Repair of a Retrocaval Ureter: A Case Report and Video Demonstration.Case reports in urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Retrocaval ureter is a rare congenital anomaly resulting from the abnormal development of the inferior vena cava (IVC), where the ureter passes posteriorly and loops around the IVC. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the etiology, classification, clinical presentation, diagnostic approaches, and management strategies for retrocaval ureter. Methods: We performed a narrative, non-systematic literature review using PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Web of Science for articles related to retrocaval ureter to perform a narrative review of the current literature on retrocaval ureter, including clinical case series, reviews, and surgical outcome studies. Emphasis was placed on diagnostic imaging, surgical techniques, and outcomes. Key Content and Findings: Retrocaval ureter has an estimated incidence of 1 in 1,000 births and is more frequently diagnosed in males. It is classified into two anatomical types, with Type 1 being more common and often associated with significant hydronephrosis. Advances in imaging, including computed tomography (CT) urography and magnetic resonance (MR) urography, have improved diagnostic accuracy. The management of retrocaval ureter varies depending on the severity of symptoms, but surgical correction, primarily through minimally invasive techniques like laparoscopic or robotic ureteroureterostomy, is the treatment of choice in symptomatic patients. Minimally invasive surgery offers reduced recovery time and excellent outcomes. Conclusions: Retrocaval ureter is a rare but significant condition that can lead to ureteral obstruction and hydronephrosis. Early diagnosis through modern imaging and prompt surgical intervention in symptomatic cases can prevent long-term renal damage. Minimally invasive techniques have emerged as the gold standard for surgical management, offering favorable outcomes with minimal complications.
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.