ReviewF1000Research2019
Recent advances in urologic surgical techniques for pyeloplasty.
Review in F1000Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term outcomes of robotic vs. laparoscopic pyeloplasty: analysis of the NSQIP database.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Intermittent Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction Can Mimic Abdominal Migraine: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Early post-operative outcomes of robot-assisted pyeloplasty in patients with unilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- The construction of a nomogram to predict the prognosis and recurrence risks of UPJO.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Minimal Invasive Treatment in Pelvic-Ureteric Junction Obstruction: A Comprehensive Review.Research and reports in urology · 2021Review
- Comparison of Safety, Efficacy and Outcomes of Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty vs Conventional Laparoscopy.Research and reports in urology · 2020Review
- Laparoscopic pyeloplasty proficiency during a residency program after adoption of a standardized simulation training program is maintained during the COVID pandemic despite reduced surgery volume.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pyeloplasty is one of the most common urological reconstructive interventions. Since the presentation of the first open pyeloplasty by Anderson and Hynes in 1949, the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction has dramatically developed. The most immense progress was made in the 1990s with the introduction of laparoscopy. A multitude of new minimal surgical techniques have been introduced since then. In the last few years, the innovations were based on refinement of already-existing techniques and technology. With this aim, single-port surgery, three-dimensional vision for laparoscopy, robotic technology, and alternative techniques for creating the anastomosis-like fibrin glue have been introduced. This unsystematic review is timely, and the scientific interest is to present and discuss some of the latest advances in surgical techniques and different approaches for the intra- and post-operative management in pyeloplasty. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only review looking at the recent advances in urological surgical techniques for pyeloplasty during the last few years with a focus on new technology and surgical techniques.
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.