ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Primary versus rescue laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy for complex upper urinary tract obstruction: a single-center series with long-term follow-up.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic ureterocalicostomy (UC) performed as a primary-versus-rescue reconstruction after failed prior repair in complex upper urinary tract obstruction.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained single-institution database of 24 patients who underwent laparoscopic UC between January 2008 and August 2024; UC was decided intraoperatively when conditions precluded safe pyeloplasty. The comparison was restricted to primary ureteropelvic junction obstruction (n = 23): rescue UC after failed prior repair (n = 12) versus primary UC without previous repair (n = 11). Demographics, operative data, complications, split renal function (DTPA scintigraphy), serum creatinine/eGFR, and symptom resolution were compared between and within groups.
resultsThe cohort was predominantly adult (33% younger than 18). The two groups were comparable in age, symptom duration, operative time, blood loss, and hospital stay (all p > 0.4). Pre- and postoperative split renal functions were comparable between groups (p = 0.35 and p = 0.97) and remained stable within both groups (40.0 ± 20.6% to 43.2 ± 18.5% overall). There were no conversions and only minor complications. At a median follow-up of 60 months, 22 of 24 patients (91.6%) achieved resolution of the obstruction. The two adverse outcomes were one primary failure (excluded patient, nephrectomy) and one late recurrence at 18 months. At last follow-up, 22 of 24 patients (91.6%) had durable resolution of the obstruction. There were two adverse outcomes of different nature: one primary failure (the excluded patient, who never improved and required nephrectomy) and one late recurrence in the primary group, in a patient with initial resolution who restenosed at 18 months; both related to complex calyceal anatomy.
conclusionLaparoscopic UC provided durable long-term resolution of obstruction whether performed as a primary or a rescue reconstruction. UC is a reliable option in both unoperated and redo settings when pyeloplasty is unsafe, provided that calyceal anatomy is carefully assessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42472771What 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.