ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2025
Ureteroscopy for renal allograft lithiasis: institutional experience and global insights from a systematic 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.
- Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for complex ureteral lithiasis in a renal allograft: A case report.Urology case reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Renal allograft lithiasis (RAL) is a rare but potentially serious complication following kidney transplantation. Traditionally, ureteroscopy (URS) has been considered a second-line treatment for stones <15 mm, typically after failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), due to concerns over challenging ureteral access. This study reviews Singapore General Hospital (SGH)'s experience and compares outcomes with published literature to evaluate efficacy and safety. Methods: Retrospective review was conducted on RAL cases treated with URS at SGH from January 2015 to December 2023. Data collected included demographics, end-stage renal failure etiology, preoperative biochemistry, stone characteristics, and surgical details. Stone-free status and complications were assessed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed using five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library) from inception up to August 13, 2023. We included all primary studies with no restriction on study design, published in English, including conference abstracts and excluded articles on Results: Five URS procedures were performed at SGH for RAL during the study period, yielding a stone-free rate (SFR) of 71.4%. One case involved an encrusted double-J (DJ) stent. The systematic review included 30 studies (10 case reports, 20 case series) totaling 145 URS procedures. The overall SFR was 82.3%. Thirteen complications (9.0%) were reported, including ureteral perforation (n=3), urinary tract infections (n=3), and nephrocutaneous fistula (n=2). No graft loss was reported. These rates are comparable to those seen in non-transplant URS. Conclusions: URS appears to be a safe and effective treatment for RAL, with outcomes comparable to non-transplant populations. Increasing evidence supports URS as a first-line option in select transplant patients. The current evidence is limited by small case numbers, retrospective study designs, and lack of standardisation in defining and assessing stone-free outcomes.
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.