Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42211087›Full record

ReviewEuropean urology open science2026

Impact of Surgical Techniques on Anastomotic Stricture in Urinary Diversion: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Ahmed R Alfarhan, Akihiro Matsukawa, Angelo Cormio, Marcin Miszczyk, Abdulrahman A Alhazeem, Abdulrahman S Alqathtani, Alessandro Dematteis, Ichiro Tsuboi, Navid Roessler, Takafumi Yanagisawa and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European urology open science, 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

15 authors.

Ahmed R AlfarhanDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Akihiro MatsukawaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Angelo CormioDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Marcin MiszczykDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abdulrahman A AlhazeemDepartment of Urology, King Fahad Hospital Hofuf, Al Ahsa Health Cluster, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulrahman S AlqathtaniDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Alessandro DematteisDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Ichiro TsuboiDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Navid RoesslerDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Takafumi YanagisawaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jun MikiDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Piotr ChłostaDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Pierre I KarakiewiczCancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montréal Health Center, Montréal, Canada.
Takahiro KimuraDepartment of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shahrokh F ShariatDepartment of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context: Benign ureteral-ileal anastomotic stricture (UIAS) is a common complication of urinary diversion (UD). Many surgical techniques have been tested to mitigate its risk; however, an optimal strategy is yet to be established. Evidence acquisition: In July 2024, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Random-effects pairwise meta-analyses of risk ratios (RRs) were performed to compare the risk of UIAS between various surgical techniques. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB2, ROBINS-I tools, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. (PROSPERO: CRD42024574087). Evidence synthesis: A total of 46 studies ( Conclusion: The risk of UIAS is significantly higher in the robotic surgery approach, which should prompt more cautious follow-up. Moreover, it was significantly higher in patients with ECUD, while the commonly used UD methods were not significantly associated with the risk of UIAS. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

Indexed as

Anastomotic stricturesBricker techniqueOpen radical cystectomyRadical cystectomyRobot-assisted radical cystectomySurgical techniquesUreter-enteric stricturesUrinary diversionUrological complicationsWallace technique

Identifiers

PMID42211087
PMCPMC13214337

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.