ReviewArab journal of urology2022
Salvage minimally invasive robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty in adults: a systematic review.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early encrustation of a ureteric metallic stent managed by robotic assisted extraction and pyeloplasty.Radiology case reports · 2025Article
- Redo laparoscopic pyeloplasty for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a single center experience and a review of the literature.BMC urology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: A UPJO is a blockage of the ureter that affects urine flow. UPJO is mainly treated by an open approach, however, in recent years minimally invasive techniques are taking place. These techniques include robotic and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Some patients require a redo after a primary intervention. A systematic review was conducted through the examinations of the efficacy and safety of a robotic redo pyeloplasty in adult patients from previous literature reviews. Methods: A literature search was made through PubMed. A selection process was done based on our eligibility criteria. The data were represented numerically, listed on tables and analyzed cumulatively using Microsoft Excel. Results: Twenty studies were included in this review, of which nine were studies on robotic outcomes () (157 patients), 10 on laparoscopic (210 patients), and one review by Zhang et al., focused on both types of surgeries. Two papers (24 patients) from the robotic studies and one paper (21 patients) from the laparoscopic studies were excluded from the intra and post-operative characteristics because not enough data were available and were only included for the success and complication rates. The success rate for the robotic studies was 88.5% while the laparoscopic studies had a success rate of 91%. However, the robotic studies had a complication rate of (11.8%) while the laparoscopic studies had a complication rate of (15.9%). Conversion surgery was required in one patient undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Conclusion: The minimally invasive methods are becoming more viable in adult patients with rUPJO, considering its effectiveness and fast recovery. This can lead to a new era of robotic assisted surgeries to becoming the gold standard.
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.