SynthesisBJU international2025
Robotic surgery for paediatric neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted and open surgery in treating neurogenic bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Global research trends in robot-assisted pediatric urological surgery: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate in a systematic review the outcomes, benefits, and limitations of robot-assisted surgeries for paediatric neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (LUTD), as robot-assisted techniques have emerged as a potential alternative, offering enhanced precision, dexterity, and visualisation.
methodsThis review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO identifier CRD42023464849) and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included studies of paediatric patients (aged <18 years) with neurogenic LUTD undergoing robot-assisted continence surgery, assessing safety and efficacy. Literature searches in the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and Scopus were conducted until 12 July 2024. Data extraction included surgical procedures, complications, operative times, lengths of stay, and bladder function outcomes.
resultsA total of 42 studies (20 case reports, 10 case series, six cohort studies, six comparative cohort studies) were included. Robotic procedures for continent catherisable channel construction, augmentation cystoplasty, and bladder neck reconstruction showed comparable peri- and postoperative outcomes. Meta-analysis of five studies comparing robotic vs open appendicovesicostomy indicated a significant reduction in length of stay for robotic groups, while operative time, complications, and re-intervention rates were not significantly different. Conversions to open surgery were rare, indicated by adhesions or small appendices during channel constructions.
conclusionsRobot-assisted surgeries for paediatric neurogenic LUTD demonstrate potential benefits, including reduced hospital stays and comparable complication rates to open surgery in certain contexts. However, the available evidence is limited by heterogeneity in study designs, small sample sizes, and single-centre experiences, which constrain generalisability. Standardised reporting of complications and outcomes, alongside multicentre studies, is essential to clarify the long-term efficacy and broader applicability of these techniques.
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.