ArticleBJUI compass2025
Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single-centre series.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The modified Whitaker test is a reliable adjunctive rule-out tool for evaluating efficacy after ureteral reimplantation.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Robotic vs. open ureteral reimplantation: A retrospective comparative single-centre series.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the outcomes of open versus robotic ureteral reimplantation procedures at a single centre. Material and methods: The charts of all patients with ureteral strictures who underwent open ureteral reimplantation between 2005 and 2024, and those who underwent robotic reimplantation between 2013 and 2024, were retrospectively reviewed, and the outcomes of the two approaches were compared. Results: Eighty patients were included in the final analysis: 45 in the open surgery group and 35 in the robotic group. After a median follow-up duration of 16,5 months for the open group and 10 months for the robotic group, the stricture recurrence rate was similar in both groups (6,8% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.99). In terms of long-term complications, there were similar rates of symptomatic reflux (4.4% vs. 5.7%; p = 0.99) and flank pain (8.9% vs. 8.6%; p = 0.99) between both groups. There were more recurrent urinary tract infections in the open group (17.8% vs. 8.6%) and more de novo lower urinary tract symptoms in the robotic group (11.4% vs. 2.2%), but these differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.33 and p = 0.16, respectively). Overall, 30 patients (38%) had at least one long-term complication (35.6% vs 40%; p = 0.82). The only variable significantly associated with the risk of stricture recurrence was radiotherapy (OR = 11.2; p = 0.01). Conclusion: The robotic approach appears to be non-inferior to the open approach in terms of stricture recurrence while being associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and lower estimated blood loss. More importantly, the present series raises questions regarding the long-term consequences of ureteral reimplantation and confirms the higher risk of failure in radiated patients.
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.