ReviewCureus2025
Robotic Flexible Ureteroscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgical Efficacy, Safety and Ergonomic Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Optimal duration of pre-stenting before RIRS: a prospective randomized study evaluating FANS-UAS placement success.World journal of urology · 2026Trial
- Simulation-based dosimetric analysis of surgeon radiation exposure during robotic-assisted versus conventional URS.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Difficult Access in Endourology: Anatomical Challenges and Contemporary Management.Current urology reports · 2026Review
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
Robotic flexible ureteroscopy (RFURS) has emerged as a novel approach to address the ergonomic challenges and technical limitations of conventional flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) for renal stone management. While FURS remains a cornerstone in treating nephrolithiasis, prolonged procedures contribute to surgeon fatigue, musculoskeletal strain, and increased radiation exposure. Despite growing adoption, the literature lacks a synthesis of the clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness, and long-term outcomes of RFURS compared to conventional approaches. The objective of our study is to synthesize the existing evidence in the literature and produce a comprehensive systematic review of RFURS. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane (inception: June 2025) for clinical studies on RFURS. Meta-analysis used random-effects models for pooled estimates of stone-free rates (SFRs), operative times and complications. The risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane risk tool. Twelve studies (706 patients) were included. RFURS achieved a pooled SFR of 87.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.7-92.0%), comparable to conventional FURS. Pooled operative time was 94.7 minutes (95% CI: 78.9-110.5), longer than conventional FURS. Complication rates were 10.6% (95% CI: 5.1-16.1%) similar to conventional FURS. Ergonomics were superior, with reduced surgeon fatigue and radiation exposure. Learning curves vary according to the robot platforms and early proficiency is noted among experienced endoscopists. Cost-effectiveness data were limited. RFURS demonstrates non-inferior efficacy and safety to conventional FURS, with enhanced ergonomics and manageable learning curves. High heterogeneity and limited cost data necessitate larger comparative studies.
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.