ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Analysis of techniques for urinary reconstruction following ureteral complications in renal transplant recipients.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUreteral strictures and urinary fistulas remain the most frequent urological complications after kidney transplantation and may jeopardize graft function when drainage or endourological measures fail. We assessed outcomes of surgical reconstruction, using pyelo-ureteral anastomosis as the reference technique.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center study (March 2008-June 2025) including adult kidney transplant recipients who required open surgical reconstruction for ureteral stricture or urinary fistula. Patients treated with endoscopy alone and those managed with simple early ureterovesical reimplantation were excluded. Reconstructions were grouped as pyelo-ureteral anastomosis (n = 21) or other techniques (n = 14): calico-ureteral anastomosis (n = 6), Boari-Küss flap (n = 3), ureterovesical reimplantation with psoas hitch (n = 3) and crossed pyelo-ureteral anastomosis (n = 2). The primary endpoint was functional success defined by recurrence-free status, i.e., no long-term dependence on secondary urinary diversion (JJ stent and/or nephrostomy) and no need for further reconstructive surgery. Secondary endpoints were renal function at last follow-up (creatinine and creatinine clearance) and graft survival.
resultsAmong 1,137 transplantations, 90 patients (7.9%) developed urological complications: ureteral stenosis (n = 42) and urinary fistula (n = 54), with 4 fistulas evolving to stenosis. After a stepwise strategy, 35 patients underwent definitive reconstruction, while the overall institutional pathway achieved ultimate success in 81/90 cases (90%). In the surgical cohort, return to dialysis was observed only in the non-reference group (two calico-ureteral stricture cases), and failures clustered in crossed pyelo-ureteral repairs (2/2). At last follow-up, renal function tended to be better after pyelo-ureteral anastomosis (lower creatinine, similar clearance), with broadly comparable graft survival across techniques.
conclusionPyelo-ureteral anastomosis is a robust salvage option for post-transplant strictures and fistulas. Alternative reconstructions remain valuable when tailored to anatomy and intraoperative findings, whereas crossed pyelo-ureteral repair showed limited durability in our experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41703361What 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.