Background
Materials and methods
Search strategy
Criteria for study inclusion and exclusion
Definition of operative success
Data extraction
Assessment of study quality
Statistical analyses
Results
Study characteristics
Author | Publication year | Design | Operative approaches | End points | Study size | Secondary UPJO | Uro-lithiasis | Country | Population | Mean age [years] | Percent female | Follow up [monts] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baldwin et al. [25] | 2003 | retrospective | EP, LP, OP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, transfusion, complications, length of stay, analgesia requirement | 32 | LP 44%, EP 33%, OP 43% | NA | USA | adult | 44,4 and 37 and 42 | NA | 11,0 and 9,9 and 5,4 |
Bernie et al. [26] | 2005 | retrospective | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, complications, urinary leakage, length of stay | 14 | NA | NA | USA | adult | 34 and 32 | NA | 24 and 10 |
Bird et al. [27] | 2011 | prospective | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, suturing time, estimated blood loss, conversion, complications, length of stay | 172 | 13% overall | LP 16%, RP 30% | USA | adult | 39,7+/−14,6 | 53 | NA |
Brooks et al. [28] | 1995 | retrospective | EP, LP, OP | operative success, operating time, transfusion, re-operation, complications, length of stay, time to return to normal activity, analgesia requirement | 45 | EP 23%, LP 8%, OP 18% | EP 1%, LP 0%, OP 9% | USA | adult | 42 and 38,4 and 30,6 | 60 | 22,0 and 13,6 and 26,0 |
Calvert et al. [29] | 2008 | retrospective | LP, OP | operative success, operating time, conversion, complications, length of stay | 100 | OP 6%, LP 14% | NA | UK | adult | 36,5 | 77 | 9 and 12 |
Chen et al. [30] | 2016 | retrospective | EP, LP, OP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion, complications, urinary leakage, length of stay | 109 | NA | NA | China | children and adult | 32,8+/−15,6 and 30,9+/− 12,9 and 37,5+/− 12,0 | 39 | 51,9+/− 40,1 |
Danuser et al. [31] | 2012 | NA | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, conversion, complications, length of stay | 82 | NA | NA | Switzerland | NA | NA | NA | NA |
Desai et al. [14] | 2004 | retrospective | EP, LP | operative success, operating time, re-operation, complications, length of stay | 29 | none | NA | USA and India | adult | 38,6+/−16,1 and 38,9+/− 17 | 48 | 31,4+/− 12,6 and 20,0+/−14,0 |
Fahad [32] | 2017 | NA | LP, OP | operative success, operating time, conversion, re-operation, complications, urinary leakage, deaths, length of stay, time to return to normal activity, analgesia requirement | 40 | NA | NA | Iraq | children and adult | 24 | 35 | 9 |
Garcia-Galisteo et al. [33] | 2011 | retrospective | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, suturing time, estimated blood loss, transfusion, complications, deaths, length of stay | 50 | NA | NA | Spain | children and adult | 33,9 | 60 | 20,6 and 42,5 |
Han et al. [22] | 2008 | retrospective | EP, LP | operative success, operating time, transfusion, complications, length of stay, renal function | 45 | EP 31%, LP 13% | NA | Korea | adult | 45,22 and 49,5 ± 13,6 | 47 | 15,2 and 14,3 |
Hanske et al. [20] | 2015 | retrospective | LP, OP | transfusion, re-operation, complications, deaths | 593 | NA | NA | USA | adult | median 48 | 57 | 1 |
Hemal et al. [34] | 2010 | retrospective | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, suturing time, estimated blood loss, conversion, re-operation, complications, length of stay, time to return to normal activity, analgesia requirement | 60 | NA | NA | India | children and adult | 24,9 and 28,1 | 32 | 18 |
Klingler et al. [35] | 2003 | retrospective | LP, OP | operative success, re-operation, complications, pain, analgesia requirement | 55 | LP 8%, OP 0% | NA | Switzerland | adult | 35,9+/−21,1 and 41,0+/−27,9 | 60 | 19,4+/−9,1 and 17,9+/−8,8 |
Link et al. [36] | 2006 | prospective | LP, RP | operating time, complications, urinary leakage | 20 | none | NA | USA | adult | 46,5 and 38,0 | 65 | 5,6 |
Lucas et al. [16] | 2012 | retrospective | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, complications, urinary leakage | 759 | RP 27%, LP 24% | RP 18%, LP 12% | North America | NA | 35 | NA | 11+/−13 and 15+/− 16 |
Memon et al. [37] | 2016 | retrospective | LP, OP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, complications, length of stay | 73 | none | NA | Pakistan | adult | 28 and 30 | 59 | 2,7+/−1,2 |
Mohammed [38] | 2017 | prospective | LP, OP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, re-operation, length of stay | 55 | NA | NA | Germany | obese, NA | NA | NA | > 12 |
Olweny et al. [39] | 2012 | retrospective | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, conversion, complications, length of stay, analgesia requirement | 20 | none | NA | USA | adult | 40,3 and 35,8 | 57 | 2,8 and 9,2 |
Pahwa et al. [40] | 2014 | pro- and retrospective | LP, OP, RP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, complications, length of stay | 90 | none | NA | India | adult | 31,4 and 34,4 and 32 | 33 | 32,0 and 18,0 and 13,5 |
Rivas et al. [15] | 2015 | retrospective | LP, OP | operative success, conversion, complications, deaths, length of stay | 92 | NA | LP 19%, OP 20% | Spain | adult | 44,5 and 38,5 | NA | 45 |
Simforoosh et al. [41] | 2004 | prospective | LP, OP | operative success, operating time, transfusion, re-operation, complications, urinary leakage, length of stay | 69 | none | NA | Iran | children and adult | 18,2 and 23,1 | 38 | 16,5 and 11,4 |
Umari et al. [42] | 2011 | retrospective | LP, OP | operative success, operating time, conversion, complications, length of stay | 49 | NA | LP 17%, OP 32% | Italy | children and adult | 42 | 51 | 72,3 and 40,9 |
Wang et al. [43] | 2013 | retrospective | LP, OP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, complications, urinary leakage, length of stay, analgesia requirement | 172 | NA | NA | China | children and adult | 21 AND 25 years | 34 | 32,7 AND 38,4 months |
Weise and Winfield [44] | 2006 | prospective | LP, RP | operative success, operating time, estimated blood loss, transfusion, complications, length of stay | 45 | LP 7%, RP 0% | NA | USA | children and adult | 26 and 24,5 | 59 | 6 and 10 |
Yanke et al. [21] | 2008 | retrospective | EP, LP, RP | operative success | 273 | EP 29%; LP 28%, RP 31% | NA | USA | adult | NA | 61 | 20 and 20 and 19 |
Study quality
Baldwin et al. [25] | Bernie et al. [26] | Bird et al. [27] | Brooks et al. [28] | Calvert et al. [29] | Chen et al. [30] | Danuser et al. [31] | Desai et al. [14] | Fahad [32] | Garcia-Galisteo et al. [33] | Han et al. [22] | Hanske et al. [20] | Hemal et al. [34] | Klingler et al. [35] | Link et al. [36] | Lucas et al. [16] | Memon et al. [37] | Mohammed [38] | Olweny et al. [39] | Pahwa et al. [40] | Rivas et al. [15] | Simforoosh et al. [41] | Umari et al. [42] | Wang et al. [43] | Weise and Winfield [44] | Yanke et al. [21] | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Success | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hypothesis/aim/objective clearly described | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Main outcomes in Introduction or Methods | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Patient characteristics clearly described | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Interventions of interest clearly described | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Principal confounders clearly described | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Main findings clearly described | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Estimates of random variability provided for main outcomes | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
All adverse events of intervention reported | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Characteristics of patients lost to follow-up described | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Probability values reported for main outcomes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Subjects asked to participate were representative of source population | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Subjects prepared to participate were representative of source population | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Location and delivery of study treatment was representative of source population | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Study participants blinded to treatment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Blinded outcome assessment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Any data dredging clearly described | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Analyses adjust for differing lengths of follow-up | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Appropriate statistical tests performed | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Compliance with interventions was reliable | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Outcome measures were reliable and valid | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
All participants recruited from the same source population | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
All participants recruited over the same time period | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Participants randomized to treatment(s) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Allocation of treatment concealed from investigators and participants | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Adequate adjustment for confounding | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Losses to follow-up taken into account | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Study power | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | NA | 4 | 3 | NA | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 |
Sum | 12 | 6 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 14 | NA | 14 | 15 | NA | 23 | 16 | 13 | 15 | 13 | 20 | 13 | 17 | 19 | 17 | 25 |
Complications | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hypothesis/aim/objective clearly described | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Main outcomes in Introduction or Methods | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Patient characteristics clearly described | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Interventions of interest clearly described | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Principal confounders clearly described | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
Main findings clearly described | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Estimates of random variability provided for main outcomes | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
All adverse events of intervention reported | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | NA | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Characteristics of patients lost to follow-up described | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Probability values reported for main outcomes | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Subjects asked to participate were representative of source population | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Subjects prepared to participate were representative of source population | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Location and delivery of study treatment was representative of source population | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Study participants blinded to treatment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Blinded outcome assessment | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Any data dredging clearly described | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Analyses adjust for differing lengths of follow-up | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Appropriate statistical tests performed | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Compliance with interventions was reliable | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Outcome measures were reliable and valid | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
All participants recruited from the same source population | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
All participants recruited over the same time period | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Participants randomized to treatment(s) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Allocation of treatment concealed from investigators and participants | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Adequate adjustment for confounding | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Losses to follow-up taken into account | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | NA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Study power | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | NA | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 |
Sum | 12 | 6 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 14 | 14 | 23 | 14 | 15 | 12 | 23 | 16 | NA | 15 | 13 | 20 | 13 | 17 | 19 | 17 | 25 |
Network meta-analyses for different outcomes
Network meta-analysis of operative success
End point | Endopyelotomy (reference) | Laparoscopic pyeloplasty (reference) | Open pyeloplasty (reference) | Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (reference) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
operative success (OR) | EP (comparator) | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.18 (0.11–0.31), p = < 0.001 | 0.14 (0.07–0.27), p = < 0.001 | 0.09 (0.05–0.19), p = < 0.001 |
LP (comparator) | 5.44 (3.26–9.08), p = < 0.001 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.74 (0.44–1.26), p = 0.27 | 0.51 (0.31–0.84), p = 0.008 | |
OP (comparator) | 7.31 (3.72–14.39), p = < 0.001 | 1.34 (0.8–2.27), p = 0.27 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.69 (0.34–1.4), p = 0.306 | |
RP (comparator) | 10.59 (5.25–21.37), p = < 0.001 | 1.94 (1.19–3.19), p = 0.008 | 1.45 (0.71–2.94), p = 0.306 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | |
EP (reference) | LP (reference) | OP (reference) | RP (reference) | ||
overall complications (OR) | EP (comparator) | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.95 (0.41–2.18), p = 0.898 | 0.59 (0.25–1.39), p = 0.226 | 1.43 (0.54–3.78), p = 0.474 |
LP (comparator) | 1.06 (0.46–2.43), p = 0.898 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.62 (0.41–0.95), p = 0.027 | 1.51 (0.91–2.51), p = 0.115 | |
OP (comparator) | 1.7 (0.72–4.01), p = 0.226 | 1.61 (1.05–2.45), p = 0.027 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 2.42 (1.27–4.63), p = 0.007 | |
RP (comparator) | 0.7 (0.26–1.85), p = 0.474 | 0.66 (0.4–1.1), p = 0.115 | 0.41 (0.22–0.79), p = 0.007 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | |
EP (reference) | LP (reference) | OP (reference) | RP (reference) | ||
urinary leakage (OR) | EP (comparator) | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.14 (0.01–3.01), p = 0.211 | 0.17 (0.01–3.41), p = 0.247 | 0.25 (0.01–5.95), p = 0.392 |
LP (comparator) | 6.98 (0.33–146.48), p = 0.211 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 1.19 (0.39–3.62), p = 0.761 | 1.75 (0.74–4.17), p = 0.206 | |
OP (comparator) | 5.87 (0.29–117.38), p = 0.247 | 0.84 (0.28–2.56), p = 0.761 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 1.47 (0.36–6.05), p = 0.591 | |
RP (comparator) | 3.99 (0.17–94.46), p = 0.392 | 0.57 (0.24–1.36), p = 0.206 | 0.68 (0.17–2.79), p = 0.591 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | |
EP (reference) | LP (reference) | OP (reference) | RP (reference) | ||
re-operation (OR) | EP (comparator) | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 6.18 (0.97–39.29), p = 0.053 | 4.75 (0.7–32.39), p = 0.112 | 19.18 (0.46–800.12), p = 0.121 |
LP (comparator) | 0.16 (0.03–1.03), p = 0.053 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.77 (0.32–1.85), p = 0.557 | 3.1 (0.12–79.23), p = 0.494 | |
OP (comparator) | 0.21 (0.03–1.43), p = 0.112 | 1.3 (0.54–3.14), p = 0.557 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 4.04 (0.14–116), p = 0.415 | |
RP (comparator) | 0.05 (0–2.17), p = 0.121 | 0.32 (0.01–8.24), p = 0.494 | 0.25 (0.01–7.11), p = 0.415 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | |
EP (reference) | LP (reference) | OP (reference) | RP (reference) | ||
transfusion rate (OR) | EP (comparator) | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 2.74 (0.33–22.72), p = 0.35 | 0.78 (0.07–9.02), p = 0.844 | 6.17 (0.14–273.11), p = 0.347 |
LP (comparator) | 0.36 (0.04–3.03), p = 0.35 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 0.29 (0.04–2.16), p = 0.225 | 2.25 (0.1–52.29), p = 0.613 | |
OP (comparator) | 1.28 (0.11–14.72), p = 0.844 | 3.5 (0.46–26.44), p = 0.225 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | 7.88 (0.19–331.49), p = 0.279 | |
RP (comparator) | 0.16 (0–7.18), p = 0.347 | 0.44 (0.02–10.32), p = 0.613 | 0.13 (0–5.34), p = 0.279 | 1 (1–1), p = NA | |
EP (reference) | LP (reference) | OP (reference) | RP (reference) | ||
operating time (mean minutes and SD) after sensitivity analyses | EP (comparator) | 0 (0–0), p = NA | −127.51 (−179.83--75.19), p = < 0.001 | −76.16 (− 142.85--9.47), p = 0.025 | −115.39 (− 175.19--55.58), p = < 0.001 |
LP (comparator) | 127.51 (75.19–179.83), p = < 0.001 | 0 (0–0), p = NA | 51.35 (10–92.7), p = 0.015 | 12.12 (− 16.84–41.08), p = 0.412 | |
OP (comparator) | 76.16 (9.47–142.85), p = 0.025 | −51.35 (−92.7--10), p = 0.015 | 0 (0–0), p = NA | −39.22 (−89.71–11.26), p = 0.128 | |
RP (comparator) | 115.39 (55.58–175.19), p = < 0.001 | −12.12 (−41.08–16.84), p = 0.412 | 39.22 (− 11.26–89.71), p = 0.128 | 0 (0–0), p = NA | |
EP (reference) | LP (reference) | OP (reference) | RP (reference) | ||
length of stay (mean days and SD) | EP (comparator) | 0 (0–0), p = NA | 0.32 (−2.55–3.18), p = 0.827 | −0.69 (−4.76–3.37), p = 0.739 | 1.19 (− 2.52–4.9), p = 0.53 |
LP (comparator) | −0.32 (−3.18–2.55), p = 0.827 | 0 (0–0), p = NA | −1.01 (− 3.89–1.87), p = 0.492 | 0.87 (− 1.49–3.23), p = 0.471 | |
OP (comparator) | 0.69 (− 3.37–4.76), p = 0.739 | 1.01 (− 1.87–3.89), p = 0.492 | 0 (0–0), p = NA | 1.88 (− 1.85–5.61), p = 0.323 | |
RP (comparator) | −1.19 (− 4.9–2.52), p = 0.53 | −0.87 (− 3.23–1.49), p = 0.471 | −1.88 (− 5.61–1.85), p = 0.323 | 0 (0–0), p = NA |
Endopyelotomy | Laparoscopic pyeloplasty | Open pyeloplasty | Robot assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Operative success | 0.0000 | 0.3797 | 0.6727 | 0.9476 |
Few overall complications | 0.5583 | 0.4975 | 0.0435 | 0.9007 |
Few cases of urinary leakage | 0.8584 | 0.1963 | 0.3462 | 0.5991 |
Low re-operation rate | 0.0476 | 0.6472 | 0.4768 | 0.8284 |
Low transfusion rate | 0.3089 | 0.6730 | 0.2247 | 0.7934 |
Short operating time after sensitivity analyses | 0.9958 | 0.0712 | 0.6471 | 0.2860 |
Short length of stay | 0.4365 | 0.5252 | 0.2589 | 0.7794 |