Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41961328›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2026

An evidence-based review by the EAU Endourology on standard practices and future directions for ureteral stents in transplant patients.

Kit Mun Chow, Rachel Lau Shu-En, Julene Ong Hui Wen, Daniel Goh Wen Xiang, Valerie Gan Huei Li, Edwin Jonathan Aslim, Lay Guat Ng, Tze Kiat Ng, Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Theodoras Tokas and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Kit Mun ChowDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Rachel Lau Shu-EnDepartment of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Julene Ong Hui WenDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Daniel Goh Wen XiangDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Valerie Gan Huei LiDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Edwin Jonathan AslimDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Lay Guat NgDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Tze Kiat NgDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Bhaskar Kumar SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Hampshire, England.
Theodoras TokasDepartment of Urology, University General Hospital of Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Selcuk GuvenDepartment of Urology, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Ee Jean LimDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. eejeanlim@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAlthough ureteral stenting is widely used in kidney transplantation (KTx) to prevent major urological complications (MUC), important uncertainties remain regarding its impact on infectious outcomes, optimal dwell time, preferred removal technique, and whether routine or selective stenting is most appropriate. This scoping review synthesizes contemporary evidence to clarify best practices and identify future directions for stent use in KTx recipients.

methodsA scoping review with systematic synthesis was conducted following PRISMA methodology. PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 25 July 2025. Fifty-five eligible studies—including systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective series—were included and organized according to key clinical questions.

resultsEvidence on whether ureteric stenting independently increases urinary tract infection (UTI) risk is inconclusive, largely due to heterogeneity in definitions, stent durations, and prophylactic approaches. However, the association between dwell time and UTI risk is clear: stent removal between 14 and 21 days consistently reduces UTI rates without increasing MUCs. Uncertainty regarding the clinical course of stent colonization and asymptomatic bacteriuria continues to challenge evidence-based management in stented KTx recipients. Emerging removal methods—such as stent-on-string techniques, single-use cystoscopy, and magnetic stents—demonstrate reduced costs and improved patient tolerability. Internal double-J (DJ) stents show superior outcomes to external stents, and although evidence remains limited, selective stenting may be appropriate for carefully selected low-risk recipients.

conclusionCurrent evidence supports DJ stent insertion in KTx recipients, with removal at 14–21 days using minimally invasive, office-based techniques. Personalized selection of stent strategy, alongside evaluation of novel stent designs, represents an important direction for improving outcomes and patient experience.

Indexed as

Kidney TransplantationPostoperative ComplicationsStentsUreterUrinary Tract InfectionsDevice RemovalEvidence-Based MedicineForecastingHumansUrologyrenal transplantureteric stenting

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.