ReviewCurrent opinion in urology2026
Oral mucosa graft ureteroplasty: defining its role in complex ureteral reconstruction.
Review in Current opinion in urology, 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
purpose of reviewOral mucosa graft ureteroplasty has emerged as an organ-sparing option for complex ureteral strictures, potentially avoiding bowel interposition or renal autotransplantation in selected patients. This review is timely because indications, technical variants, and outcome definitions remain heterogeneous, and contemporary series are expanding the evidence base. RECENT
findingsAcross predominantly retrospective cohorts, oral mucosa grafting is most frequently applied to proximal and mid-ureteral strictures of several centimetres, including redo and post-endoscopic etiologies. Reported success is high when a well-vascularized bed is ensured and postoperative surveillance is standardized. Technical themes include onlay versus augmented anastomotic repairs, the selective use of vascularized coverage (omental or retroperitoneal/perinephric fat), and growing attention to donor-site morbidity, which is generally low but inconsistently reported. SUMMARY: Oral mucosa graft ureteroplasty should be considered within the reconstructive ladder for carefully selected complex strictures where primary anastomosis or reimplantation is not feasible, and where more morbid substitutes can be deferred. Future priorities include standardized definitions of success, comparative studies against ileal ureter and autotransplantation, and long-term renal functional outcomes with patient-reported measures.
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.