SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Safety and outcome assessment of robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the treatment of urodynamic stress incontinence: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present research provides a comprehensive systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in treating urodynamic stress incontinence. In line with the PRISMA framework and a protocol registered in PROSPERO, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published from inception to August 2025. Key perioperative parameters-operative time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, continence rate, and complication rate-were extracted. Data analysis was carried out using STATA software, with heterogeneity assessed by the I² statistic and sensitivity by leave-one-out analysis. Eight studies involving 328 patients were included. Among three comparative cohorts (n = 224), operative time did not differ between robotic and open AUS (WMD = 7.62, 95% CI [-57.94, 73.17], I²=97.4).The robotic group showed significantly more blood loss (WMD = 293.5, 95% CI [81.4, 505.75], I²=95.2), more perioperative complications (OR = 3.9, 95% CI [1.75, 8.66], I²=35.5), and more hospital stay (WMD = 4.71, 95% CI [2.26, 7.16], I²=87.5). Pooled analysis of robotic cases indicated a mean operative time of 197.06 min(95% CI [177.82, 216.29], I²=86.9), mean blood loss of 19.8 mL (95% CI [14.05, 25.55], I²=0.3), hospital stay of 4.85(95% CI [4.12, 5.57], I²=88) days, and an overall complication rate of 37%(95% CI [0.27, 0.5], I²=16.6). Robot-assisted AUS implantation is a safe and effective option for treating urodynamic stress incontinence, with benefits such as reduced blood loss and faster recovery. However, the moderate risk of bias and high heterogeneity among studies limit the reliability of the findings. Larger, high-quality trials are needed to confirm its long-term efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41243039What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.