Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27765696›Full record

Trial reportThe Journal of urology2017

Laparoscopic vs Open Pyeloplasty in Children: Results of a Randomized, Prospective, Controlled Trial.

John M Gatti, Sable P Amstutz, Paul R Bowlin, Heidi A Stephany, J Patrick Murphy

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The Journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. KangDuoTranslational andrology and urology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. [Preliminary application of domestic single-port serpentine arm robotic surgical system in children's pyeloplasty].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Predictive factors for early discharge (≤24 hours) and re-admission following robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

John M GattiChildren's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri.
Sable P AmstutzUniversity of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas. Electronic address: sable.shew@gmail.com.
Paul R BowlinChildren's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri.
Heidi A StephanyChildren's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
J Patrick MurphyChildren's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOpen dismembered pyeloplasty is the preferred repair for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Minimally invasive techniques have been applied to the original open approach but no clear advantage has been demonstrated for these technological advances. We evaluate outcomes between transperitoneal laparoscopic and open pyeloplasty in children. MATERIALS AND

methodsAll children 1 to 18 years old with ureteropelvic junction obstruction requiring operative repair were offered enrollment in the study. Patients were prospectively randomized to either laparoscopic or open pyeloplasty through a flank incision.

resultsA total of 50 patients in the laparoscopic group and 48 in the open group were enrolled from 2005 to 2014. Mean followup was similar between the groups (13.7 months in the laparoscopic group vs 12.3 months in the open group, p = 0.54). The only significantly different outcomes were for mean operative time, which was 139.5 minutes (range 94 to 213) in the laparoscopic group and 122.5 minutes (83 to 239) in the open group (p <0.01), and mean length of stay, which was 25.9 hours (18 to 143) in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 hours (16 to 73) in the open group (p = 0.02). Analgesic usage, success rate, total charges and all parameters in children older than 11 years were similar between the groups.

conclusionsOpen and laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty are comparable and effective methods for repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Although operative time was statistically shorter in the open group and length of stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group, the clinical significance of these variables is questionable. The approach to repair may best be based on family preference for incision aesthetics and surgeon comfort with either approach, rather than more classically objective outcome measures.

Indexed as

LaparoscopyAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantKidney PelvisMaleProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreteral ObstructionUrologic Surgical Procedureslaparoscopyminimally invasive surgical procedurespediatricsrandomized controlled trials as topicureteral obstruction

Identifiers

PMID27765696

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.