ReviewCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Transrenal Ureteric Embolic Occlusion for Refractory Urinary Leakage and Fistulae: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the technical success, clinical success, safety, and re-intervention rates of ureteric embolic occlusion in patients with refractory urinary leakage or fistulae who were unsuitable for surgical management, and to summarise the available evidence regarding procedural durability and adverse events. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through 31 May 2026 for studies reporting outcomes of permanent ureteric embolic occlusion. Eligible studies underwent independent screening, data extraction, quality assessment, and meta-analysis. Pooled technical success, clinical success, and re-intervention rates were calculated using a random effects model with 95% confidence intervals.
resultsTwelve retrospective studies involving 129 patients and 209 ureters were included. Pooled technical success was 100% (95% CI, 0.99-1.00), demonstrating near-universal immediate ureteric occlusion. Clinical success was 96% (95% CI, 0.87-1.00), although definitions of clinical response varied between studies. The overall re-intervention rate was 7.2% (95% CI, 0-0.09), reflecting repeat embolisation for recanalisation or persistent urinary leakage. No procedure-related mortality or major complications were reported. Adverse events were generally minor and included device migration, nephrostomy-related complications, urinary tract infections, and rare vascular complications.
conclusionUreteric embolic occlusion provides excellent short-term technical and clinical outcomes with minimal morbidity and low re-intervention rates in carefully selected non-surgical patients. However, the available evidence is limited by small retrospective cohorts, heterogeneous outcome definitions, and limited long-term follow-up. Future prospective multicentre studies should standardise definitions of clinical success, assess long-term durability, report nephrostomy-associated morbidity and patient-reported outcomes, and directly compare different embolic techniques and materials used more comprehensively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42778643What 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.