MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407578119 · doi:10.3390/jcm14041273

Robot-Assisted Urachal Excision and Partial Cystectomy for Urachal Pathologies: Systematic Review with Insights from Single-Center Experience

2025· review· en· W4407578119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rafał B. Drobot, Grzegorz Stawarz, Marcin Lipa, Artur A. Antoniewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary and Genital Oncology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCystectomyCenter (category theory)RobotGeneral surgerySurgeryBladder cancerInternal medicineCancerArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Urachal pathologies, while rare, carry a risk of malignant transformation. Robot-assisted urachal excision and partial cystectomy (RAUEPC) is a minimally invasive technique that offers potential advantages, but the available evidence remains limited. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of RAUEPC for benign and malignant urachal pathologies through a systematic review and single-center experience. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect (last search: 1 November 2024). Inclusion criteria encompassed studies reporting on RAUEPC for urachal pathologies, while non-robotic approaches and incomplete data were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports. Descriptive statistics summarized continuous data (means, medians, 95% confidence intervals), and chi-square tests analyzed associations between categorical variables. Heterogeneity analysis was infeasible, necessitating narrative synthesis. Institutional retrospective data from three cases (2021–2024) were included for comparison. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024597785). No external funding was received. Results: A total of 44 studies (n = 145) met the inclusion criteria. Benign lesions accounted for 66.2% and malignant lesions for 33.8%. Mean operative time was 177.8 min (cumulative), 162.7 min (benign), 192.2 min (malignant), 85.33 min (institutional, 95% CI: 74.13–96.53). Mean blood loss was 85.4 mL (cumulative), 99.5 mL (benign), 72.7 mL (malignant), 216.66 mL (institutional). Mean hospital stay was 3.64 days (cumulative), 3.26 days (benign), 4.36 days (malignant), 6.33 days (institutional, 95% CI: 3.46–9.20). Complications occurred in 10.04% (cumulative), 11.82% (benign), 8.57% (malignant), with one minor event (Clavien–Dindo II) in institutional cases. No conversions to open surgery were reported. All cases achieved complete excision with no R1 resections. No recurrences were observed at 10.66-month (institutional) mean follow-up. Conclusions: RAUEPC appears to be a feasible and safe approach with promising short-term outcomes. The associations between symptoms and diagnostic methods highlight its utility. The limitations of the evidence include small sample sizes and retrospective designs. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicUrinary and Genital Oncology StudiesFrench-language works237,207