ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
Robotic versus laparoscopic ureteroplasty with a lingual mucosa graft for complex ureteral stricture.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- From buccal mucosa to appendix: a bibliometric and evidence-maturity analysis of autologous tissue-based robot-assisted ureteral reconstruction.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Safety and efficacy of lingual mucosa graft ureteroplasty in managing ureteric strictures: a systematic review.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Ureteral stricture: current treatment algorithm and key surgical principles in the robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction era.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction for ureteral stricture: a single-center series.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Combination of robot-assisted laparoscopy and ureteroscopy for the management of complex ureteral strictures.BMC urology · 2023Article
- Robotic reconstruction for benign upper urinary tract obstruction: a review of the current literature.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
- Minimally invasive ureteroplasty with lingual mucosal graft for complex ureteral stricture: analysis of surgical and patient-reported outcomes.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
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUreteroplasty with a lingual mucosa graft (LMG) for complex ureteral stricture was reported promising. We aimed to compare outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ureteroplasty using a LMG (RU-LMG vs. LU-LMG, respectively).
methodsFrom October 2018 to January 2021, 32 ureteroplasties using LMGs were performed by one experienced surgeon, including 16 robotic and laparoscopic procedures each. Patient demographics and peri-operative, post-operative, and follow-up data were prospectively collected and compared.
resultsThe robotic group had a higher rate of previous reconstruction than the laparoscopic group (62.50% vs. 18.75%; p = 0.012). The stricture length was significantly longer in the robotic group (4.8 ± 1.2 cm) than the laparoscopic group (3.7 ± 1.2 cm; p = 0.013). All procedures were completed successfully without open conversion. The operative time was shorter in the robotic group (192 ± 54 min) than the laparoscopic group (254 ± 46 min; p = 0.001). The robotic group had a shorter length of post-operative stay (6.1 ± 2.4 d vs. 8.9 ± 4.3 d; p = 0.033) but a higher hospital cost (76,801 ± 17,974 vs. 42,214 ± 15,757 RMB; p < 0.001) than the laparoscopic group. The mean follow-up time was 21 ± 7 months for the robotic group and 29 ± 9 months for the laparoscopic group respectively (p = 0.014). No difference was detected in the success rate (93.75% and 100%, respectively; p = 0.309) and complication rate (18.75% and 31.25%, respectively; p = 0.414) between the robotic and laparoscopic groups.
conclusionBoth RU-LMG and LU-LMG are feasible, effective, and safe for repair of complex ureteral strictures. RU-LMG had a shorter operative time and a shorter length of post-operative stay but a higher hospital cost.
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.