SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
What is the best surgical approach for redo pyeloplasty in children? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRedo pyeloplasty in children is a challenging procedure that effectively corrects recurrent pelvi-ureteric junction obstruction (PUJO) and influences both renal function and development. There is no consensus on the best surgical approach that fulfils safety and efficacy standards. This study aims to compare open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted laparoscopic (RAL) approaches in redo pyeloplasty for recurrent PUJO in children.
methodsPubMed and Scopus databases were searched for studies comparing different surgical approaches for redo pyeloplasty in children. Excluded were endoscopic treatments, comparisons with primary pyeloplasty, and studies including other complex renal anomalies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa score. Quantitative synthesis and forest plots were performed.
resultsFour studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria out of 1,767 identified records, comparing laparoscopy (68 cases) with open approaches (78 cases); no RAL studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three studies showed a moderate risk of bias (6/9), and one showed good quality (7/9). In the meta-analysis, laparoscopic and open approaches showed similar complication and success rates (p = 0.74 and 0.99, respectively), with no significant heterogeneity. Laparoscopic surgery was still longer than open surgery (p < 0.0001), with significant heterogeneity (I² = 63%, p = 0.04).
conclusionLaparoscopy appears to be safer and more successful than open surgery for redo pyeloplasty in children. However, the currently available evidence remains insufficient to strongly support or refute this. There is a paucity of evidence comparing the efficacy and safety of RAL with other approaches in these cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42240853What 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.