ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2026
Quality assessment of robotic repair of benign ureteral strictures A Canadian, single-center experience.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndourologic treatments are first-line interventions for short ureteral strictures. With long strictures and endourologic failures, open repair has historically been used; however, robotic-assisted approaches have recently been shown to be effective. As a quality measure, we wanted to assess the performance of robotic ureteral reconstruction compared with open surgical repair during our transition to robotic surgery at a Canadian tertiary care center.
methodsFrom 2011-2024, 43 complex ureteral stricture cases (19 open, 24 robotic) were performed. The primary outcome was six-month success defined by a composite of stent/pain-free status and renogram elimination half-life (T½). Secondary outcomes included length of stay, operative time, estimated blood loss, and complications.
resultsSuccess rates at six months were non-significantly different between robotic and open repair (83% vs. 79%, p=0.36). Length of stay was shorter in the robotic group (3.1±1.9 vs. 4.9±3.3 days, p=0.018). Estimated blood loss (231±84 vs. 244±170 mL, p=0.30) and operative time (220±67 vs. 214±74 minutes, p=0.40) were comparable between groups. Complication rates were similar between groups.
conclusionsOverall, robotic reconstruction yields equivalent six-month success to open repair, with shorter length of stay. These findings support continuing robotic-assisted ureteral reconstruction as a safe and effective alternative to open surgery, offering equivalent short-term success and reduced hospital stay.
Identifiers
What 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.