SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic versus open surgery for ureteroenteric stricture after radical cystectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Ureteroenteric stricture (UES) frequently occurs as a postoperative complication following radical cystectomy, potentially causing severe clinical issues. The aim of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted ureteroenteric reimplantation (RUER) versus open ureteroenteric reimplantation (OUER) in the treatment of UES. The research was comprehensively explored in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases, covering the timeframe from their inception up to January 17, 2025. The research included quality-evaluated observational studies that compared RUER with OUER for UES. The primary assessment metric was the rate of stenosis recurrence versus reconstruction success. This analysis covered four studies involving a total of 161 participants, with 39 in the OUER cohort and 122 in the RUER cohort. The findings indicated that the RUER cohort experienced a shorter hospital stay than the OUER cohort (RR = - 3.18, 95% CI [- 4.88, - 1.48], p < 0.05). However, there were no notable differences between the two cohorts in terms of stenosis recurrence, reconstruction success, surgical duration, blood loss, intraoperative complications, minor issues, or the incidence of severe complications. RUER has the advantage of shorter hospitalization time than conventional open surgery in the treatment of UES, and both perform comparably in terms of safety. Nevertheless, it is essential to recognize that larger-scale randomized controlled studies are needed to thoroughly validate the reliability of these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40148577What 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.