ArticleUrology annals
Minimally invasive versus open pyeloplasty in pediatric population: Comparative retrospective study in tertiary centre.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Shaping the future of surgery: A scoping review of current robotic practices in KSA.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is the most common cause of antenatal hydronephrosis. The incidence is around 1: 750-1500 live births. The standard treatment for (UPJO) is open pyeloplasty (OP) with a high success rate of 90%-95%. In the last 20 years, minimal invasive pyeloplasty (MIP) became an excellent alternative technique to OP which was historically the standard of care. Materials and Methods: The study participants were male and female patients aged 14 years old or less who had undergone open/minimally invasive pyeloplasty during 2015-2020 and who had at least 1-year follow-up after surgery. The data were collected retrospectively from patients' charts. The patients were categorized into two cohort groups: OP and on the other arm minimally invasive pyeloplasty (robotic/laparoscopic) comparing the outcomes as a 1ry endpoint. 2ry endpoints were hospital stay, duration of surgery, and anteroposterior diameter of renal ultrasound. Results: A total of 133 patients were included in the study. Eighty-four underwent MIP while 49 patients underwent OP. 1ry endpoint was the success rate in both groups. The success rate was 94% ( Conclusion: Open and minimally invasive pyeloplasty are comparable in terms of success rate. However, OP was associated with shorter hospital stays and shorter operative times.
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.