ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2026
KangDuo
Article in Translational andrology and 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is commonly treated by robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP). While the da Vinci (DV) robotic system is widely established, the KangDuo (KD) system has emerged as an alternative platform. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and safety of KD-RAP with DV-RAP. Methods: A total of 263 consecutive patients who underwent DV-RAP and 74 consecutive patients who underwent KD-RAP were included in the study. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance baseline characteristics, resulting in 66 patients in each group. Surgical outcomes were compared between the two groups. Stratified analysis by robotic system version, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) sensitivity analysis, and learning curve analysis were additionally performed. Results: After PSM, no significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed. The median operative time was significantly longer in the KD-RAP group {DV-RAP: 132 [interquartile range (IQR): 107-153] Conclusions: KD-RAP showed comparable safety and efficacy to DV-RAP. Although KD-RAP had longer operative time and PLOS, both systems achieved similar success rates and low complication rates, supporting the feasibility of the KD system as an alternative to the DV system in the management of UPJO.
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.