1972
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)60751-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Ureteral Diverticula

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1981
1981
2000
2000

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Lack of embryological evidence [13,16] has led many authors and ourselves to question whether we are really dealing with two different entities or simply the progres sive distension of the blind branch giving it a 'diverticu lar' appearance [5,24,29,30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lack of embryological evidence [13,16] has led many authors and ourselves to question whether we are really dealing with two different entities or simply the progres sive distension of the blind branch giving it a 'diverticu lar' appearance [5,24,29,30].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the case of two ureteral orifices, multiple bud ding of the Wolffian duct leads to duplex ureters [9,12,14], For unclear reasons, there seems to be no union of one ureteral bud with the metanephric blastema in utero, resulting in a blind bifid ureter or a blind duplex ureter. In the past some short blind-end ing duplications have been classified as ureteral diverticula causing considerable confusion in terminology [4], but most of these cases could be defined as blind-ending ureters rather than diverticula [3,9,12], …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%