Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33569271›Full record

ReviewAsian journal of urology2021

The robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction in adult: A narrative review on the surgical techniques and contemporary outcomes.

Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat, Marcio Covas Moschovas, Vipul R Patel, Young Hwii Ko

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Laparoscopic ventral onlay ureteroplasty with buccal mucosa graft for complex proximal ureteral stricture.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam BhatDepartment of Urology, AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, United States.
Marcio Covas MoschovasDepartment of Urology, AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, United States.
Vipul R PatelDepartment of Urology, AdventHealth Global Robotics Institute, Celebration, FL, United States.
Young Hwii KoDepartment of Urology, Yeungnam University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
AdventHealth Celebration · USYeungnam University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the rapid increase in the use of robotic surgery in urology, the majority of ureteric reconstruction procedures are still performed using laparoscopic or open approaches. This is primarily due to uncertainty regarding the advantages of robotic approaches over conventional ones, and the unique difficulty in identifying the specific area of interest due to the lack of tactile feedback from the current robotic systems. However, with the potential benefits of minimal invasiveness, several pioneering reports have been published on robotic surgery in urology. By reviewing the literature on this topic, we aimed to summarize the techniques, considerations, and consistent findings regarding robotic ureteral reconstruction in adults. Robotic applications for ureteral surgery have been primarily reported for pediatric urology, especially in the context of relieving a congenital obstruction in the ureteral pelvic junction. However, contemporary studies have also consistently demonstrated that robotic surgery could be a reliable option for malignant, iatrogenic, and traumatic conditions, which generally occur in adult patients. Nevertheless, the lack of comparative studies on heterogeneous hosts and disease conditions make it difficult to determine the benefit of the robotic approach over the conventional approach in the general population; thus, qualified prospective trials are needed for wider acceptance. However, contemporary reports have demonstrated that the robotic approach could be an alternative option for ureteral construction, even in the absence of haptic feedback, which can be compensated by various surgical techniques and enhanced three-dimensional visualization.

Indexed as

Robotic pyeloplastyRobotic reconstructive surgerySurgical techniquesUreteric reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID33569271
PMCPMC7859418
OpenAlexW3097672351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.