ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Robotic segmental ureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: comparable short-term oncological outcomes and improved postoperative recovery compared to open approach.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSegmental ureterectomy (SU) is an established kidney-sparing strategy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC), yet few studies have compared the standard open approach to the emerging robotic modality.
methodsWe performed a clinical outcome and safety evaluation of robotic-assisted SU compared to the traditional open approach. In this retrospective study of 53 patients (40 open, 13 robotic) treated between 2008 and 2025, we assessed perioperative, functional, and oncological parameters.
resultsRegarding safety endpoints, robotic SU demonstrated a favorable profile with no significant difference in postoperative complication rates compared to open surgery (15.4% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.7). While the robotic approach involved longer operative times (351 vs. 285 min, p = 0.01), it resulted in a significantly shorter median hospital stay (4 vs. 12 days, p < 0.001). Utilizing Firth's penalized Cox regression to account for sparse events, no significant differences were observed in overall survival (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.13-6.17, p = 0.815) or disease-free survival (HR 1.22, 95% CI 0.31-3.63, p = 0.75). Similarly, secondary endpoints including intraluminal recurrence-free (p = 0.188), intravesical recurrence-free (p = 0.581), and metastasis-free survival (p = 0.997) did not differ significantly. Postoperatively, functional evaluation revealed a trend toward improved renal function in the robotic cohort (+ 22.94 vs. +7.46 mL/min/1.73 m², p = 0.08).
conclusionsRobotic SU appears feasible and was not associated with an apparent compromise in short-term oncological outcomes during the available follow-up period, while offering the benefits of minimally invasive recovery. Given the limited follow-up and small sample size of the robotic cohort, these results provide preliminary evidence of safety. Further multi-institutional, large-scale studies with extended follow-up are required to establish definitive long-term non-inferiority.
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.