SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2024
Robotic pyelolithotomy for treating large renal stone disease: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and management of de novo ureteral strictures following ureteroscopy: A retrospective observational study.Urologia · 2026Observational
- Research landscape, knowledge structure, and emerging frontiers of robot-assisted surgery for urolithiasis: a bibliometric and visualization analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty with flexible ureteroscopy for managing concomitant ureteropelvic junction obstruction and renal calculi in children.Translational pediatrics · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes Between Robotic-Assisted Pyelolithotomy and Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones Larger Than 2 cm in Older Adults: A One-Year Follow-Up Study.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2025Article
- Robot-Assisted Pyelolithotomy in Pelvic Kidney.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic pyelolithotomy continues to gain attention as an alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for managing complex renal stones. We performed a single-arm meta-analysis and systematically searched the English-language literature published in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases up to June 2024. The risk of non-randomized bias was assessed using ROBINS-I, and the quality of the literature was assessed using MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies). Merger parameters were calculated using Stata16/SE under a random-effects model. Five non-comparative single-arm studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results showed that the operative time for robotic pyelolithotomy was 168.10 min (95% CI 133.63, 202.56). The hospital stay was 2.63 days (95% CI 0.96, 4.29), and blood loss was 44.13 ml (95% CI 19.76, 68.51). The stone clearance rate was 87% (95% CI 79-93%). The incidence of minor postoperative complications (Clavien grade I-II) was 23.7% (95% CI 13.4-35.8%), and the incidence of major complications (Clavien grade ≥ III) was 7% (95% CI 0.3-20.7%).The safety and efficacy of robotic pyelolithotomy in treating complex renal stones are acceptable, but future large prospective cohort studies are needed to validate the treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39120845What 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.