Table 3. Outcomes of the present study compared with other studies.

Authors (year)	Patients bi-/all (n)	Reconstruction shape (n)	Anti-reflux technique (n)	Mean operative time (min)	Mean hospital stay (d)	Renal function	Success rate	Minor complications	Major complications
Kim et al. (2018) (10)	14/31	Reverse “7” [8]; “7” [2]; “Y” [2]; “11” [2]	0	396.1	28.8	Slightly increased	96.6%	NA	Short term 28.6%; long term 85.7%
Kocot et al. (2017) (12)	52/157	Reverse “7” (NA); “Y” (NA)	52	NA	NA	Stable	94.9%	24.7%	2.9%
Jeong et al. (2016) (7)	4/7	Reverse “7” (NA); “7” (NA)	NA	413.0	27	Stable	100%	NA	57.1%
Abhyankar et al. (2015) (22)	1/1	Reverse “7” [1]	0	720.0	NA	Stable	100%	NA	NO
Wolff et al. (2011) (21)	4/17	Reverse “7” [4]	0	NA	12.4	Stable/improved 64.7%	58.8%	29.4%	23.5%
Armatys et al. (2009) (11)	8/91	“7” [2]; Reverse “7” [4]; Unknown [2]	2	NA	7	Stable/improved 74.7%	NA	Short term 53.8%; Long term 65.9%	Short term 29.7%; Long term 23.1%
Chung et al. (2006) (19)	2/56	“11” [2]-one side colon, one side ileum	0	NA	NA	Stable/improved 94.6%%	82%	17.9%	10.7%
Matlaga et al. (2003) (24)	2/16	“11” [2]	0	353	7.5	Stable 100%	100%	37.5%	0
Verduyckt et al. (2002) (20)	4/18	“U” [3]; Vertical placed [1]	2	NA	NA	Improved 88.8%	15/18 83%	Short term 33.3%; Long term 44.4%	Short term 22.2%; Long term 33.3%
Crassweller et al. (1958) (23)	1/1	“U” [1]	0	NA	NA	Stable	100%	100%	0
Present study	18/18	Reverse “7”	18	308.4	21.6	Normal	94.4%	7 (38.9%)	2 (11.1%)

NA, not available; Short term, the follow-up time ≤30 days; Long term, the follow-up time >30 days.