ReviewCentral European journal of urology2024
Robot-assisted versus laparoscopic ileal ureteral replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted ileal ureter replacement for complex ureteral strictures: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of surgical and functional outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Total ureteral replacement with a small intestinal graft as a reconstructive stage of combined treatment for recurrent colorectal cancer: case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- A bibliometric study of the top 100 most-cited papers in ureteral stricture reconstruction.Translational andrology and 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (LS) are the main options for ileal ureteral replacement (IUR). It is not clear which option is superior. The purpose of this study is to compare RALS and LS for IUR. Material and methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar for studies comparing RALS and LS for IUR. The outcomes of interest are operative time, blood loss, postoperative stay, and Clavien-Dindo complications. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4. Results: We included 36 patients from 3 studies. The mean age was 44 years, with 53% male patients. Blood loss (MD -89.13 cc, CI -129.03 to -49.22, I Conclusions: Overall, we conclude that the robot-assisted technique showed less bleeding compared to the laparoscopic technique.
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.