ArticleClinics and practice2021
Introduction of Pediatric Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty in A Low-Volume Centre.
Article in Clinics and practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative outcomes of robotic-assisted and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients: a decade of evidence.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: a systematic review of the literature.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Enhancing pediatric robotic pyeloplasty with a no-touch urothelium approach: a case series.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Pediatric Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Where Are We Now?Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Learning Curves in Pediatric Robot-Assisted Pyeloplasty: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Acute abdominal pain localized in right iliac fossa: Not always acute appendicitis. A case of giant hydronephrosis in an 8-year-old boy and literature overview.International journal of pediatrics & adolescent medicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: This study investigated the introduction of pediatric robot-assisted pyeloplasty in a low-volume centre with reference to open pyeloplasty with regards to operative times, length of stay (LOS) and outcomes and cost analysis. (2) Methods: Data from 10 consecutive robot-assisted pyeloplasties was compared retrospectively to an age and weight matched cohort of open pyeloplasties operated on during two previous years. Operative times were analyzed in conjunction with LOS, outcomes and cost-analysis from patient records. (3) Results: Operative times remain longer in robot-assisted pyeloplasties (168 (IQR 68) vs. 141 (IQR 51) min), but patients are discharged from the hospital earlier and may return to daily activities earlier. In our hospital, the difference in LOS levels to some degree the cost difference between operations. (4) Conclusions: Robot-assisted pyeloplasty can be safely and economically introduced and maintained in a low-volume centre.
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.