ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Surgical success following robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction, results from a global network of healthcare organizations.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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.
- Mapping the global landscape of robot-assisted upper urinary tract reconstruction: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAvailable data on robotic ureteral reconstruction procedures is concentrated from high volume centers. To better understand generalizability of success, we used a network of healthcare organizations (HCOs) to evaluate surgical success following robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (RP), ureteral reimplantation (RR), and ureteroureterostomy/ureteroplasty (RU).
methodsWe searched the TriNetX database for adult (>18 years old) patients undergoing RP, RR and RU. Our primary outcome was need for drain placement (nephrostomy or ureteral stent) from 4 weeks to 10 years postoperatively. We evaluated risk factors (RF) for drain placement (vascular disease, kidney disease, diabetes (DM), smoking history, radiation history, age, body mass index (BMI, kg/m^2)) using hazard ratios, with significance when 95% confidence interval does not include 1.0.
resultsAnalyses were run in October 2024. There were 1,324 RP patients from 30 HCOs, 464 RR patients from 22 HCOs, and 875 RU patients from 27 HCOs. Respectively, 10.8%, 11.7%, and 7.9% of patients needed a drain. DM (HR 2.0 (1.04–3.68)), smoking (HR 2.2 (1.34–3.49)), and BMI > 25 (HR 1.6 (1.07–2.34)) were RFs for drain placement following RP. DM (HR 2.8 (1.18–6.63)) was also a RF for RR patients. Radiation was a RF for both RR (HR 2.9 (1.03–8.09)) and RU (HR 3.7 (1.006–13.9)) patients. Age > 50 years (HR 2.3 (1.16–4.49)) was a RF for RU patients.
conclusionsWe report outcomes of robotic ureteral reconstruction from a variety of HCOs. This data helps describe the real world experience of patients undergoing robotic upper urinary tract reconstruction.
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.