ArticleWorld journal of urology2023
Comparative efficacy and safety of different minimal invasive pyeloplasty in treating patients with ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a network meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of urology, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty with flexible ureteroscopy for managing concomitant ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal calculi in children.Translational pediatrics · 2025Article
- Crossing Vessels in Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty: Anatomy and Outcomes.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn recent years, the minimally invasive surgical treatment methods of ureteropelvic junctional obstruction (UPJO) have been diverse, but its approach and choice of surgical method are controversial. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of minimally invasive surgeries for UPJO, which included robotic or laparoscopic pyeloplasty, via the retroperitoneal or transperitoneal approach.
methodsWe searched relevant RCTs in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI. To assess the results of operative time, complications and success rate, pairwise, and NMA were carried out. The models for analyses were performed by Revman 5.3, Addis V1.16.8 and R software.
resultsA total of 6 RCTs were included in this study involving four types of surgeries: transperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty (T-LP), retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyeloplasty (R-LP), robot-assisted transperitoneal pyeloplasty (T-RALP), and robot-assisted retroperitoneal pyeloplasty (R-RALP). This study consisted of 381 patients overall. T-RALP had a quicker operational duration (SMD = 1.67, 95% CI 0.27-3.07, P = 0.02) than T-LP. According to the NMA's consistency model, T-RALP improved the surgical success rate more than T-LP (RR = 6303.19, CI 1.28 to 1.47 × 10
conclusionOutcomes for four surgical approaches used in the UPJO were comparable, with T-RALP being the most recommended approach. Selection between the transperitoneal and retroperitoneal approaches primarily depended on the surgeon's preference. Higher quality evidence is needed to further enhance the result.
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.