ReviewResearch and reports in urology2020
Comparison of Safety, Efficacy and Outcomes of Robot Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty vs Conventional Laparoscopy.
Review in Research and reports in urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Laparoscopic vs. robot-assisted pyeloplasty: a single-centre outcome analysis with 11 years median follow-up.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Da Vinci robotic assisted pyeloplasty versus laparoscopic pyeloplasty in newborns under 3 months.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Single-port robotic pyeloplasty in young patients: cosmetic satisfaction and faster recovery matter.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Three-Dimensional Virtual Model for Robot-Assisted Partial Nephrectomy (RAPN): Development of Study Protocol for Evaluation of the Learning Curve to Optimize the Precision and Accuracy of the 3D Imaging.Research and reports in urology · 2025Article
- Pyeloplasty and Ureteral Reconstruction Surgery Trends: A Total Population Analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2022.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Robot-assisted laparoscopic Anderson-Hynes pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Case Report; Concomitant Left Nutcracker Syndrome and Right Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.Research and reports in urology · 2024Article
- Robotic versus Open Pyeloplasty: Perioperative and Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pyeloplasty is considered the gold standard for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in cases of flank pain, recurrent stone formation or infection, and deteriorating renal function. Over the last two decades, minimally invasive techniques such as robotic (RALP) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) have become increasingly popular and have been moderately replacing the open approach. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive up-to-date review on safety, efficacy and outcomes regarding robotic repair of UPJO compared to the conventional laparoscopic procedure. RALP represents a viable and innovative alternative to conventional LP with a comparable success and complication rate both in adult and in paediatric fields. The robotic approach seems to add further technical advantages when compared to conventional LP but sustains a higher costs. Currently, the choice to adopt one of the different minimally invasive approaches depends on the surgeon's preference or experience, and on institutional availability.
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.