ArticleBMC surgery2026
Ureteral versus appendiceal Mitrofanoff channels: a retrospective analysis of functional outcomes and complications.
Article in BMC surgery, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Mitrofanoff principal entails creating a continent catheterizable channel, traditionally the appendix. In patients with nonfunctioning kidney, the ureter of this kidney can be an alternative This study aims to compare outcomes of ureter versus appendiceal Mitrofanoff channels (MCs). PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent MC creation between January 2020 and June 2024 for patients with neurogenic bladder, exstrophy-epispadias complex, prune belly syndrome, or posterior urethral valves. Group A included patients who had a ureter as MC (n = 11), while Group B included those with an appendiceal MC (n = 33). Data on demographics, operative details, complications, and continence outcomes were collected and analyzed.
resultsForty-four patients (Male patients = 24) were included, with a median age of 13.0 years (IQR 9.0-15.0) in Group A and 10.0 years (IQR 7.0-12.0) in Group B (p = 0.002). Myelomeningocele was the most common diagnosis in both groups. Bladder augmentation was performed in 81.8% of patients in each group, predominantly with ileo-cystoplasty. Satisfactory clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) without complications was achieved in 54.4% of Group A and 57.5% of Group B. Stomal stenosis occurred more frequently in Group B (18.2% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.003), while meatal granuloma was more common in Group A (27.3% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.043). Other complications included urine leakage, painful catheterization, catheterization difficulty, and intestinal obstruction, with no significant intergroup differences.
conclusionUreter as an MC offers a valid option for continent urinary diversion, demonstrating comparable continence outcomes as compared to appendiceal MC. The ureter represents a feasible and reliable alternative conduit in patients with a nonfunctioning kidney.
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.