ReviewEuropean urology open science2026
Autologous Tissue Substitutes for Ureteral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Surgical Techniques and Outcomes.
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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Oral mucosa graft ureteroplasty: defining its role in complex ureteral reconstruction.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
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
Background and objective: Ureteral strictures (USTs) are increasingly common. While some can be managed endoscopically, many cases require reconstructive surgery. Autologous tissue substitutes (ATSs) are a promising option in this setting. The aim of our systematic review was to map surgical techniques and outcomes for ureteral reconstruction using various ATS options. Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three databases were searched for studies on ATS ureteroplasty. Seventeen studies (559 patients) reporting on buccal mucosa grafts (BMGs), lingual mucosa grafts (LMGs), appendiceal techniques, vesical mucosa grafts (VMGs), and reconfigured intestinal segments were included. Owing to substantial clinical heterogeneity for graft types, surgical techniques, outcome definitions, and follow-up protocols, a quantitative meta-analysis was not feasible. A narrative synthesis was therefore used to report technical aspects and outcomes. Key findings and limitations: The most common UST causes were iatrogenic and stone-related. In most of the studies included, more than one-third of the patients enrolled had a history of ureteral repair. Short-term success rates were 85-100% for BMGs/LMGs, 85-93% for appendiceal techniques, and 100% in the single VMG series, but definitions of success varied widely across the studies. BMGs/LMGs were most frequently used for shorter strictures (<5 cm), whereas appendiceal techniques were used for longer defects (up to 7.5 cm). Limitations include the retrospective nature of most studies, heterogeneous reporting of outcomes, and short follow-up, which precluded meta-analysis and long-term assessment of efficacy. Conclusions and clinical implications: ATSs are a viable option for ureteral reconstruction. Graft choice should be tailored to the stricture length and location. These techniques require specialised expertise but can prevent more morbid procedures. Patient summary: This review looked at use of a patient's own tissue (eg, from the inside of the cheek or the appendix) to repair the tube draining urine from the kidney to the bladder when it is blocked by a narrow segment. Results show that these techniques work very well and can often prevent the need for more invasive surgery. The type of tissue chosen depends on the exact nature and location of the blockage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.