Trial reportPediatric surgery international2025
Is open pyeloplasty still a practical option for pediatric patients in resource-limited settings compared to laparoscopic and robotic approaches?
Trial report in Pediatric surgery international, 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.
- Comparison of outcomes of open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with pelviureteric junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Impact of Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Pyeloplasty (RALP) on Pediatric Hydronephrosis with and Without Abdominal Pain Symptoms: A Cohort Study Using Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW).Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the feasibility of open pyeloplasty (OP) for treating pediatric pelviureteric junction obstruction in resource-limited settings in the era of robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RALP) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP).
methodsA total of 168 patients (56 each) were randomized to receive RALP, LP, or OP, respectively.
resultsThe operative time for the RALP was significantly higher (P < 0.001) compared to LP and open OP. The length of stay (LOS) for RALP and LP was substantially lower (P < 0.001) compared to the OP, with average stays of 2.8 ± 1.5 days, 3.1 ± 1.2 days, and 6.4 ± 8.1 days, respectively. In the RALP group, 54 (96.4%) had a non-obstructed drainage pattern post-operatively compared to 52 (92.8%) in the LP group, and 53 (94.6%) patients in the OP group (P = 0.363). Only 2 (3.6%) patients in the RALP group and 4 (7.1%) patients in the LP group, and 3 (5.3%) patients in OP group, exhibited obstructed drainage on dynamic nuclear scan. Grade II complications (urine leakage) occurred in 2 patients in the RALP cohort, and in 3 patients in the LP cohort. The leakage typically resolved within 10 days and did not require further intervention. Higher-grade complications (Clavien Grade 3 and 4a), such as hydronephrosis, were identified in both the RALP and OP groups (one case each).
conclusionDue to comparable success rates and minimal complications, OP is a viable alternative to minimally invasive RALP and LP in treating pediatric patients with PUJO, particularly where cost and equipment availability are limiting factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41264091What 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.