SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Ileal ureter replacement versus kidney autotransplantation for complex ureteral strictures in the robotic era: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To systematically evaluate and compare the perioperative metrics, renal functional preservation, and surgical success rates of ileal ureter replacement (IU) versus kidney autotransplantation (KAT) for complex ureteral strictures, with a specific focus on the emerging role of robotic-assisted techniques. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to February 2026, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Thirty-two studies involving 1,044 patients (1,003 IU; 41 KAT) were included. The primary outcome was surgical success rate. Secondary outcomes included changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (ΔeGFR), major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ III), and perioperative efficiency. Results: The KAT group exhibited better baseline renal function compared to the IU group. Despite this selection bias, meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in surgical success rates between IU (93.0%) and KAT (87.8%) (OR 1.85, 95% CI: 0.69–4.95, P = 0.22; I^2 = 0%). Similarly, both techniques demonstrated comparable renal functional preservation (ΔeGFR MD -0.93 mL/min, P = 0.86) and major complication rates (3.6% vs. 2.4%, P = 1.00). However, IU was associated with significantly shorter operative time (MD -139 min, P < 0.001) but a longer hospital stay (MD + 5.7 days, P = 0.02). Notably, the robotic IU subgroup achieved a success rate of 90.7%, confirming the high efficacy of minimally invasive reconstruction. Conclusion: Based on current low-certainty evidence, both IU and KAT are effective salvage procedures for complex ureteral strictures. While KAT offers shorter hospitalization, IU provides a significant advantage in operative efficiency. Given the inherent selection bias, IU represents a pragmatic and robust reconstruction strategy, with robotic-assisted techniques further enhancing its clinical feasibility for the majority of patients with complex ureteral defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41741888What 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.