Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39495338›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

Use of omentum during robotic-assisted reconstructive urological surgery: a systematic review of the current literature.

Christopher Anderson, Theodoros Spinos, Evangelos Liatsikos, Panagiotis Kallidonis, Vasileios Tatanis, Anja Dietel, Toni Franz, Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Surgical techniques and clinical outcomes of upper urinary tract reconstruction for stone-related ureteral strictures].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Christopher Anderson *Department of Urology, St. Georges University Hospital, London, UK.
Theodoros Spinos *Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Evangelos LiatsikosDepartment of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece. liatsikos@yahoo.com.
Panagiotis KallidonisDepartment of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Vasileios TatanisDepartment of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Anja DietelDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Toni FranzDepartment of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg *Department of Urology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDue to its biological properties, the omentum is a very useful tool in the hands of reconstructive urologists. The purpose of this systematic review is to present all existing evidence regarding the use of omentum during different robotic-assisted reconstructive urological surgeries.

methodsIn accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines, three databases (PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane) were systematically screened. The following search string was used: (omentum OR omental) AND robotic. Retrospective studies and case-series were included, while case-reports were not included.

results13 studies met all eligibility criteria and were included in final qualitative synthesis. Seven studies reported robotic vesicovaginal fistula repair, two studies reported robotic vesicouterine or vesicocervical fistula repair, one study reported robotic rectovesical fistula repair, one study reported robotic rectourethral fistula repair, one study reported ureterolysis with omental wrap and one study reported robotic repair of long ureteral strictures with omental wrap and autologous onlay flap or graft ureteroplasty. Recurrence rates ranged from 0% to 6.7%. The Grade I-II complications according to Clavien-Dindo Classification ranged from 0 to 40%, while no Grade III-IV were reported.

conclusionRobotic repair with the use of omentum is potentially a feasible, safe and efficient approach for complicated urological surgeries, such as vesicovaginal, vesicouterine, vaginocervical, rectovesical and rectourethral fistulas, idiopathic retroperitoneal fibrosis and long ureteral strictures. Because the evidence is based on small case series, further publications are needed to enhance confidence in omental harvesting and render it a routine component of reconstructive Urology.

Indexed as

OmentumRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansPlastic Surgery ProceduresUrinary FistulaVesicovaginal FistulaFistulaMinimally-invasive surgeryOmentumReconstructive urologyRobotic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.