Surgical outcomes of bladder augmentation: A comparison of three different augmentation procedures

doi:10.12998/wjcc.v8.i15.3240

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 8, Issue 15

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (5008)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-1) series, Tables (1-3) series.

Item

Count

PDF

238

WORD

HTML

2231

Figures (1-1)

398

Tables (1-3)

202

Sum=3150

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

557

Download

1301

Sum=1858

Aug 6, 2020 (publication date) through Jul 21, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (6)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Clinical Cases

ISSN

2307-8960

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Retrospective Study

World J Clin Cases. Aug 6, 2020; 8(15): 3240-3248
Published online Aug 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i15.3240

Table 1 Characteristics of patients and concomitant surgery in all three groups

	Patients, n	Sex, male/female	Age at surgery in yr	Follow-up duration in mo	Ureteral reimplantation	Pyramidalis myofascial sling	Continent catheterizable channel
SC	46	21/25	10.8	36	32	16	19
SCLU	37	22/15	7.5	61	14	35	0
AA	13	5/8	4.8	36	11	0	0

SC: Standard cystoplasty; SCLU: Seromuscular cystoplasty lined with urothelium; AA: Auto-augmentation.

Citation: Sun XG, Wang RY, Xu JL, Li DG, Chen WX, Li JL, Wang J, Li AW. Surgical outcomes of bladder augmentation: A comparison of three different augmentation procedures. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(15): 3240-3248
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v8/i15/3240.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i15.3240