ReviewCurrent urology reports2017
Robotic Ureteral Reimplant-the Current Role.
Review in Current urology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open versus minimally invasive ureteroneocystostomy: trends and outcomes in a NSQIP-P cohort.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Trends in robotic surgery utilization across tertiary children's hospitals in the United States.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Robotic Urologic Surgery in the Infant: a Review.Current urology reports · 2019Review
- Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplant: A single-center experience.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe goal of this article is to review the current role of robotic ureteral reimplant in pediatric patients, specifically in regard to indications, outcomes, and complications. RECENT
findingsRobotic ureteral reimplant has become an increasingly popular alternative to open ureteral reimplant with overall published success rates between 77-100%. In recent years, larger, multi-institutional studies have been conducted revealing lower success rates and higher complications than previously reported, but the procedure still remains safe and effective in the hands of skilled surgeons. The robotic approach offers shorter hospital stay, decreased post-operative pain, and improved cosmesis, but also results in higher healthcare costs. Robotic ureteral reimplant serves as a minimally invasive alternative to open ureteral reimplant for the properly selected patient in the hands of experience surgeons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.