ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
Balancing technology and resources: Is robotic pyeloplasty always necessary?
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2025. 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.
- Comparison of robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty for primary pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a retrospective multicenter study.Scientific reports · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) hinders urine flow from the renal pelvis to the ureter, causing renal dysfunction. Treatment focuses on relieving obstruction to restore urinary drainage and preserve renal function. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) offers enhanced precision compared to laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP), but limited comparative data exist for adult patients. This study compares RALP and LP outcomes in an adult cohort from a tertiary care centre. Material and methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on adult patients who underwent RALP or LP between March 2018 and May 2024. Primary outcome measures included operative time, with secondary outcomes such as estimated blood loss (EBL), hospital length of stay (LOS), complication rates, and success (defined by symptom relief and diuretic renogram improvement). Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney, χ Results: The study included 128 patients (87 RALP, 41 LP). Operative time was significantly longer for RALP (200.92 ±59.26 minutes) vs LP (161.92 ±55.21 minutes, p <0.001), largely due to robotic docking. Both groups had similar EBL (47.87 ml for RALP vs 45 ml for LP, p = 0.45) and success rates (97.7% for RALP vs 97.4% for LP). However, RALP patients experienced a longer LOS (3.91 days vs 3.41 days, p = 0.001). Conclusions: RALP demonstrates technical advantages but does not reduce operative time and incurs increased resource utilisation compared to LP. Both techniques achieve high success rates, though further research is needed to assess RALP's cost-effectiveness.
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.