Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40978941›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

Robotic Flexible Ureteroscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Surgical Efficacy, Safety and Ergonomic Outcomes.

Praveen Gopi, Muhammed Ishfaq, Zakaria W Shkoukani, Ninaad Awsare, John McCabe, Azi Samsudin, Kaylie E Hughes, Mohamed Abdulmajed

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
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.

Praveen GopiDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.
Muhammed IshfaqDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.
Zakaria W ShkoukaniDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.
Ninaad AwsareDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.
John McCabeDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.
Azi SamsudinDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.
Kaylie E HughesDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.
Mohamed AbdulmajedDepartment of Urology, Mersey and West Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service (NHS) Trust, Prescot, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ergonomicsmeta-analysisrenal calculirobotic ureteroscopystone-free rate

Identifiers

PMID40978941
PMCPMC12446739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.