Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic, laparoscopic and open surgery in ureteral reimplantation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Updates in Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To compare the efficacy and safety between open ureteral replantation (OUR), laparoscopic ureteral replantation (LUR) and robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral replantation (RALUR). This review produced by the R3.5.0 software with “gemtc” program package and JAGS3.4.0 software based on the Bayesian model. A comprehensive search was done in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, Cnki, CBM and WANFANG DATA. Studies that compared OUR, LUR OR RALUR were selected. Summary of Conclusions by ranking of Outcomes. A total of 3949 patients from 29 studies were included. The success rate in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 97.72%, 94.68% and 95.82%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.76 (0.42,1.7) and 0.76 (0.30, 2.6), respectively, compared with OUR. The rate of complications in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 12.78%, 7.94% and 16.32%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.28 (0.16, 0.48) and 0.61 (0.24,1.3), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for operation time was 22 (2,40) and 46 (7.5,84), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for hospital stay was − 3.6 (− 4.5, − 2.7) and − 1.1 (− 2.9, 0.58), respectively, compared with OUR. There is no significant difference in the success rates of OUR, LUR, and RALUR. RALUR and OUR has similar complication rates and time of hospital stay, while LUR has fewer complications and faster time to discharge compared to RALUR and OUR. The operative time of OUR is significantly less compared to LUR and RALUR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stühler V, Bedke J, Stenzl A (2019) Surgical reconstruction of the ureter. Der Urologe Ausg A 58:651–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Radmayr C, Bogaert G, Dogan HS et al (2018) EAU Guidelines on Paediatric Urology 2018. European Association of Urology Guidelines 2018 Edition, Vol. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Copenhagen 2018. Arnhem, The Netherlands European Association of Urology Guidelines Office

  3. Yanqun N, Zhangqun Y, Yinghao S, Guang S (2014) Chinese guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of Urological Diseases. People's Medical Publishing House, Beijing

  4. Gerber JA, Koh CJ (2020) Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation in children: a valuable alternative to open surgery. World J Urol 38:1849–1854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kirsch AJ, Arlen AM (2020) Evolving surgical management of pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: is open ureteral reimplantation still the “Gold Standard”? Int Braz J Urol 46:314–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T (2014) Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rassweiler JJ, Gozen AS, Erdogru T, Sugiono M, Teber D (2007) Ureteral reimplantation for management of ureteral strictures: a retrospective comparison of laparoscopic and open techniques. Eur Urol 51:512–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chengjie L (2007) Comparative study of laparoscopic bladder flap ureteroneocystostomy and open surgery [master]. Zhejiang University (in Chinese)

  9. Xu Z (2010) Comparative study of laparoscopic submucosal tunnel ureteroneocystostomy and open surgery [master]. Central South University (in Chinese)

  10. Marchini GS, Hong YK, Minnillo BJ et al (2011) Robotic assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation in children: case matched comparative study with open surgical approach. J Urol 185:1870–1875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Smith RP, Oliver JL, Peters CA (2011) Pediatric robotic extravesical ureteral reimplantation: comparison with open surgery. J Urol 185:1876–1881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhenliang P (2011) Clinical study of laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy in the treatment of megaureter. Clin Med 9:69–70 (in Chinese)

  13. Baldie K, Angell J, Ogan K, Hood N, Pattaras JG (2012) Robotic management of benign mid and distal ureteral strictures and comparison with laparoscopic approaches at a single institution. Urology 80:596–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Yufang S (2012) Comparison of the efficacy of open and pneumovesical laparoscopic vesicoureteral replantation in the treatment of vesicoureteral obstruction. Chin J Urol 6:439–442 (in Chinese)

  15. Schomburg JL, Haberman K, Willihnganz-Lawson KH, Shukla AR (2014) Robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation: a single surgeon comparison to open surgery. J Pediatr Urol 10:875–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yidan Q (2015) Comparison of the efficacy of open and pneumovesical laparoscopic vesicoureteral replantation in the treatment of vesicoureteral obstruction. Med Inf 15:133 (in Chinese)

  17. Arlen AM, Broderick KM, Travers C, Smith EA, Elmore JM, Kirsch AJ (2016) Outcomes of complex robot-assisted extravesical ureteral reimplantation in the pediatric population. J Pediatr Urol 12:169.e1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Esposito C, Escolino M, Lopez M et al (2016) Surgical management of pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: a comparative study between endoscopic, laparoscopic, and open surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 26:574–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kurtz MP, Leow JJ, Varda BK et al (2016) Robotic versus open pediatric ureteral reimplantation: costs and complications from a nationwide sample. J Pediatric Urol 12:408.e1-408.e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xiaojiang Z (2016) Comparison of laparoscopic and open Lich–Gregoir repeat nephroureterostomy. Chin J Urol 9:707–708 (in Chinese)

  22. Atar A, Eksi M, Güler AF, Tuncer M, Akkas F, Tugcu V (2017) Long term outcomes of laparoscopic and open modified Lich–Gregoir reimplantation in adults: a multicentric comparative study. Pak J Med Sci 33:788–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhong W, Yao L, Cui H et al (2017) Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with extracorporeal tailoring and direct nipple ureteroneocystostomy for adult obstructive megaureter: long-term outcomes and comparison to open procedure. Int Urol Nephrol 49:1973–1978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Qi D, Jing Z (2017) Clinical efficacy and safety of laparoscopic vesicoureteral reimplantation for vesicoureteral reflux in children. Chin J Endemic Dis Prev Control 32:1268–1269 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Taiyang L, Xiuhua W, Jie L et al (2017) Clinical effect of open surgery and pneumovesical laparoscopic vesicoureteral replantation in the treatment of vesicoureteral obstruction. China Med Eng 25:87–89 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Qiu P, Rongsheng S, Dawei H, Peng L (2017) Clinical efficacy of open and pneumovesical laparoscopic vesicoureteral replantation in the treatment of children with vesicoureteral obstruction. J Hunan Normal Univ (Med Edit) 14:161–163 (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bustangi N, Kallas Chemaly A, Scalabre A et al (2018) Extravesical ureteral reimplantation following Lich–Gregoir technique for the correction of vesico-ureteral reflux retrospective comparative study open vs. laparoscopy. Front Pediatr 6:388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Esposito C, Varlet F, Riquelme MA et al (2019) Postoperative bladder dysfunction and outcomes after minimally invasive extravesical ureteric reimplantation in children using a laparoscopic and a robot-assisted approach: results of a multicentre international survey. BJU Int 124:820–827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tae BS, Jeon BJ, Choi H, Park JY, Bae JH (2019) Comparison of open and pneumovesical approaches for Politano–Leadbetter ureteric reimplantation: a single-center long-term follow-up study. J Pediatric Urol 15:513.e1-e7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Xiang L (2019) Comparative study and clinical efficacy analysis of pneumovesical laparoscopy and open surgery in the treatment of ureteral stricture in children [Master]. Anhui Medical University (in Chinese)

  31. Wang J, Mou Y, Li A (2020) Comparison of open and pneumovesical cohen approach for treatment of primary vesicoureteral junction obstruction in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 30:328–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang Y, Ouyang W, Xu H et al (2020) A comparison of robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation and conventional laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation for the management of benign distal ureteral stricture. Urol J 17:252–256

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Peng T, Min C, Yin Z, Jiabin J (2020) To explore the effectiveness of laparoscopic ureteroneocystostomy in the treatment of pediatric vesicoureteral fistula. Diet Health Care 49:17 (in Chinese)

  34. Ding G, Cheng S, Li X et al (2021) Experience managing distal ureteral strictures with Boari flap-psoas hitch and comparison of open and laparoscopic procedures. Transl Androl Urol 10:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu X, Wang J, Zhu H et al (2021) Lich–Gregoir vesico-ureteral reimplantation for duplex kidney anomalies in the pediatric population: a retrospective cohort study between laparoscopic and open surgery. Transl Pediatr 10:26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. da Cruz JAS, Passerotti CC (2010) Reconstructive laparoscopy in pediatric urology. Curr Opin Urol 20:330–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Lanzhou University (lzujbky-2021-kb29), Lanzhou science and technology development guiding plan project (2019-ZD-60), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (31920180099).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Guangrui Fan and Kun Li have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Urology, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Key Laboratory of Urological Diseases in Gansu Province, Gansu Nephro-Urological Clinical Center, 82 Cuiying Gate, Lanzhou, 730030, Gansu, People’s Republic of China

    Guangrui Fan, Kun Li, Yuhan Wang, Youli Zhao & Zhiping Wang

  2. Panzhihua Central Hospital, Panzhihua, 617000, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China

    Kun Li

Authors
  1. Guangrui Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuhan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Youli Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhiping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.F.: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing; K.L.: data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing; Y.W. and Y.Z.: data check and reanalyze; Z.W.: project development and manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhiping Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interests.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This study does not include any human participants and animals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, G., Li, K., Wang, Y. et al. Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic, laparoscopic and open surgery in ureteral reimplantation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review. Updates Surg 74, 1491–1499 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01344-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-022-01344-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation