Case series of pediatric ureteral fibroepithelial polyps (since 2003)
| Patients (n) | Incidence of preoperative diagnosis (%) | Bilateral (n) | Endoscopic | Pyeloplasty | Recurrence | |
| Adey et al23 | 9 | 25.8 | 2 | N | Y | 0 |
| Niu et al24 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | Y | N/A |
| Kara et al25 | 5 | 0 | 0 | Y | N | 0 |
| Kojima et al12 | 14 | 21.4 | 0 | Y | Y* | 9 |
| Bian et al26 | 13 | 100† | 2 | N | Y | 0 |
| Arda et al3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | Y | 0 |
| Cattaneo et al2 | 1 | 100 | 0 | N | Y | 0 |
| Ezekiel et al27 | 1 | 0 | 0 | N | Y | 0 |
| Lu et al14 | 2 | 100 | 0 | N | Y | 0 |
N and Y mean which method the authors chose to deal with UFPs; if they chose endoscopic, it was “Y”; the pyeloplasty line was “N”, and the converse was also true.
*Recurrence cases treated with pyeloplasty.
†Endoscopic could diagnose UFPs and then removed them.
N, no; N/A, not applicable; UFP, ureteral fibroepithelial polyp; Y, yes.