ReviewWorld journal of urology2026
Pediatric ureteral stenting: state-of-the-art review.
Review in World journal of 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn this scoping review, we mapped the available clinical evidence on the use of double-J (DJ) ureteral stents in pediatric patients across reconstructive, stone-related, and other endourological indications, synthesizing contemporary data on techniques, sizing, dwell time, removal strategies, outcomes, and emerging technologies.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). The review protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251147003). PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched without date limits to 9 September 2025. Original clinical studies on double-J (DJ) ureteral stents in children were screened, data were extracted into a harmonized database, and risk of bias was appraised using RoB 2, ROBINS-I, or the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist as appropriate.
resultsFifty studies (2003–2025) were included. In reconstruction, internal DJ and externalized stents achieved similar success after pyeloplasty; externalized options commonly enabled office removal without general anesthesia (GA) but often increased length of stay and/or operating time. During ureteroneocystostomy for vesicoureteral reflux, routine stenting was associated with worse adjusted short-term outcomes; these findings are consistent with selective use. In stone disease, routine pre-stenting before ureteroscopy or extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy did not improve stone-free rates and increased infectious morbidity; when performed, a short dwell time (~ 2 weeks) was adequate. Across indications, modifiable drivers of morbidity included prolonged dwell, bilateral placement, and multiple lifetime stents. Practical aids included the “Age + 10 cm” length rule and strategies that reduce GA exposure (e.g., stent-on-string with disciplined protocols). Magnetic DJ systems showed high outpatient retrieval success with familiar complication profiles, while anti-biofilm/anti-encrustation coatings remain promising but require pediatric clinical validation.
conclusionPediatric ureteral stenting practices vary widely across indications. The mapped literature suggests broadly comparable success between internal and externalized stents in reconstruction, while highlighting the importance of dwell time, anesthesia exposure, and individualized decision-making. In stone disease, routine pre-stenting does not appear to confer consistent benefit. Overall, careful patient selection, planned dwell duration, and structured follow-up remain central to optimizing outcomes, while prospective multicenter studies are needed to strengthen the evidence base.
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.