ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Robotic-assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation: a multicentre comparison.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted ureteric reimplantation versus laparoscopic and open approaches: systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Current status of single port robotic-assisted reconstructive urology: a systematic review, meta-analysis and structured summary of the available literature.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic versus open surgery for ureteroenteric stricture after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- The modified Whitaker test is a reliable adjunctive rule-out tool for evaluating efficacy after ureteral reimplantation.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Global trends in robot-assisted ureteral reimplantation: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic ureteric reimplantation for benign disease in a tertiary UK centre: safe and effective.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Ureteral stricture: current treatment algorithm and key surgical principles in the robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction era.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single-centre series.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- A multicenter study of perioperative and functional outcomes of open vs. robot assisted uretero-enteric reimplantation after radical cystectomy.World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOpen ureteral reimplantation is considered the standard surgical approach to treat distal ureteral strictures or injuries. These procedures are increasingly performed in a minimally invasive and robotic-assisted manner. Notably, no series comparing perioperative outcomes and safety of the open vs. robotic approach are available so far.
methodsIn this retrospective multi-center study, we compared data from 51 robotic ureteral reimplantations (RUR) with 79 open ureteral reimplantations (OUR). Both cohorts were comparatively assessed using different baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes. Moreover, a multivariate logistic regression for independent predictors was performed.
resultsSurgery time, length of hospital stay and dwell time of bladder catheter were shorter in the robotic cohort, whereas estimated blood loss, postoperative blood transfusion rate and postoperative complications were lower than in the open cohort. In the multivariate linear regression analysis, robotic approach was an independent predictor for a shorter operation time (coefficient - 0.254, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.342 to - 0.166; p < 0.001), a lower estimated blood loss (coefficient - 0.390, 95% CI - 0.549 to - 0.231, p < 0.001) and a shorter length of hospital stay (coefficient - 0.455, 95% CI - 0.552 to - 0.358, p < 0.001). Moreover, robotic surgery was an independent predictor for a shorter dwell time of bladder catheter (coefficient - 0.210, 95% CI - 0.278 to - 0.142, p < 0.001).
conclusionRUR represents a safe alternative to OUR, with a shorter operative time, decreased blood loss and length of hospital stay. Prospective research are needed to further define the extent of the advantages of the robotic approach over open surgery.
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.