File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1186/s12894-023-01313-7
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85174213112
- WOS: WOS:001089395400003
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Robotic ureteral reconstruction for benign ureteral strictures: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes
Title | Robotic ureteral reconstruction for benign ureteral strictures: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Laparoscopic Minimally invasive Reconstruction Robotic Ureteral stricture |
Issue Date | 12-Oct-2023 |
Publisher | BioMed Central |
Citation | BMC Urology, 2023, v. 23, n. 1 How to Cite? |
Abstract | IntroductionRobotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction. MethodsOur systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size ≥ 10 cases were included. ResultsA total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported ≥ 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85–90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001). ConclusionsRUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/337757 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.7 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.609 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Yang, Kunlin | - |
dc.contributor.author | Pang, Karl Ho | - |
dc.contributor.author | Fan, Shubo | - |
dc.contributor.author | Li, Xinfei | - |
dc.contributor.author | Osman, Nadir | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chapple, Christopher | - |
dc.contributor.author | Zhou, Liqun | - |
dc.contributor.author | Li, Xuesong | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-11T10:23:38Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-11T10:23:38Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023-10-12 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | BMC Urology, 2023, v. 23, n. 1 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1471-2490 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/337757 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <h3>Introduction</h3><p>Robotic ureteral reconstruction (RUR) has been widely used to treat ureteral diseases. To summarize the surgical techniques, complications, and outcomes following RUR, as well as to compare data on RUR with open and laparoscopic ureteral reconstruction.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Our systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42022309364) database. The PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for publications in English on 06-Feb-2022. Randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised cohort studies with sample size ≥ 10 cases were included.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 23 studies were included involving 996 patients and 1004 ureters from 13 non-comparative, and 10 retrospective comparative studies. No RCT study of RUR was reported. The success rate was reported ≥ 90% in 15 studies. Four studies reported 85–90% success rate. Meta-analyses for comparative studies showed that RUR had significantly lower estimated blood loss (EBL) (P = 0.006) and shorter length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) than the open approach. RUR had shorter operative time than laparoscopic surgery (P < 0.001).</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>RUR is associated with lower EBL and shorter LOS than the open approach, and shorter operative time than the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of benign ureteral strictures. However, further studies and more evidence are needed to determine whether RUR is more superior.</p> | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | BioMed Central | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | BMC Urology | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Laparoscopic | - |
dc.subject | Minimally invasive | - |
dc.subject | Reconstruction | - |
dc.subject | Robotic | - |
dc.subject | Ureteral stricture | - |
dc.title | Robotic ureteral reconstruction for benign ureteral strictures: a systematic review of surgical techniques, complications and outcomes | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1186/s12894-023-01313-7 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85174213112 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 23 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1471-2490 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:001089395400003 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1471-2490 | - |