Peri‐operative outcomes and complications after laparoscopic vs robot‐assisted dismembered pyeloplasty: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the current difference between dismembered robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAP) and laparoscopic pyeloplasty (LP) in the treatment of pelvi-ureteric junction (PUJ) obstruction as of 26 June 2017, focusing on operating time, length of hospital stay, complication rate, and success rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, Medline and Embase databases, consulted experts, reviewed reference lists, used the 'related articles' PubMed feature, and reviewed scientific meeting abstracts for eligible articles published between 1993 and 26 June 2017. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. Subgroup analyses were performed regarding patient age, single or multisurgeon experience, presence of complex renal anatomy, study quality, Clavien-Dindo grades, and length of follow-up. RESULTS: From 4101 identified articles, 17 studies meeting our eligibility criteria were included for data extraction. All were observational studies, with 10 deemed to be of low quality. Meta-analysis showed that RAP resulted in a 27-min shorter operating time (weighted mean difference [WMD] -26.71 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -44.42 to -9.00; P = 0.003) and a 1.2-day shorter length of hospital stay (WMD -1.21 days, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.57; P = 0.003). The quality of evidence for these outcomes was rated as very low. Significant heterogeneity was found when analysing operating time (P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (P < 0.001), which could not be fully explained through subgroup analyses. We also identified other potentially significant sources of bias for which we could not adjust our analysis. RAP was also associated with a lower complication rate (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.84; P = 0.005) and higher success rate (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.88; P = 0.008); however, whether statistical advantages for these two outcomes translated into clinically significant advantages was unclear. The quality of evidence for these outcomes was rated as low. CONCLUSION: For patients with PUJ obstruction, our meta-analyses show that RAP is advantageous concerning operating time, length of hospital stay, complication rate and success rate. Our conclusions, however, are weakened by poor quality of evidence and significant study heterogeneity. In addition, whether the statistical significance observed in the present meta-analysis translates into clinical significance is an important question. Further high-quality studies, particularly randomized controlled trials, are necessary to strengthen conclusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".