Robotic assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 40643774
- PMCID: PMC12254083
- DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02511-1
Robotic assisted vs. open ureteral reimplantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Ureteral reimplantation is a critical surgical procedure for restoring ureteral function, traditionally performed using open ureteral reimplantation (OUR). However, robotic-assisted ureteral reimplantation (RUR) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative with potential perioperative advantages. To systematically compare the postoperative outcomes and efficacy of RUR and OUR in ureteral reimplantation in adults through a meta-analysis of existing studies. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library identified studies comparing RUR and OUR in adults up to January 2025. Studies reporting at least one outcome of interest, such as complications, blood loss, hospital stay, or reintervention rates, were included. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Four retrospective studies encompassing 258 patients (RUR: 141, OUR: 117) were included. RUR was associated with significantly fewer complications (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.91; p = 0.03), shorter hospital stays (MD: -4.97 days; 95% CI: -9.55 to -0.38; p = 0.03), and reduced transfusion requirements (RR: 0.09; 95% CI: 0.02-0.46; p = 0.004) compared to OUR. No significant differences were observed in reintervention rates or operating time. RUR demonstrates significant perioperative advantages over OUR, including reduced complications, shorter hospital stays, and lower blood loss, while maintaining comparable long-term efficacy. These findings support the adoption of RUR as a safe and effective alternative for ureteral reimplantation. Further high-quality, multicenter studies are needed to confirm these results and address remaining gaps.
Keywords: Open ureteral reimplantation; Robotic-assisted ureteral reimplantation; Ureteral strictures; Ureteral surgery.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: Not required. Consent to publication: Not required.
Figures
References
-
- Lai A, Jones R, Chen G, Bowen D (2022) Techniques of ureteral reimplantation. In: Martins FE, Holm HV, Sandhu J, McCammon KA (eds) Female genitourinary and pelvic floor reconstruction. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–22
-
- Packiam VT, Cohen AJ, Nottingham CU, Pariser JJ, Faris SF, Bales GT (2016) Open vs minimally invasive adult ureteral reimplantation: analysis of 30-day outcomes in the national surgical quality improvement program (NSQIP) database. Urology 94:123–128. 10.1016/j.urology.2016.05.025 - PubMed
-
- Abdalla A, Cohn JA, Simhan J (2024) Unraveling the complexities of uretero-enteric strictures: a modern review. Curr Urol Rep 25(11):287–297. 10.1007/s11934-024-01222-8 - PubMed
-
- Chuchulo A, Ali A (2023) Is robotic-assisted surgery better? AMA J Ethics 25(8):598–604. 10.1001/amajethics.2023.598 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
