Office E G. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Paediatric Urology [EB/OL]. Arnhem, The Netherlands:2025.

Abdulfattah S, Mittal S (2024) Pediatric robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: where are we now? Curr Urol Rep 25(3):55–61

Google Scholar 

Reddy MN, Nerli RB (2015) The laparoscopic pyeloplasty: is there a role in the age of robotics? Urol Clin North Am 42(1):43–52

Google Scholar 

Chang SJ, Hsu CK, Hsieh CH et al (2015) Comparing the efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted versus open pyeloplasty in children: a systemic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 33(11):1855–1865

Google Scholar 

Chen Z, Xu H, Wang C et al (2023) Robot-assisted surgery versus laparoscopic surgery of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Robot Surg 17(5):1891–1906

Google Scholar 

Autorino R, Eden C, El-Ghoneimi A et al (2014) Robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair of ureteropelvic junction obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 65(2):430–452

Google Scholar 

Page MJ, Mckenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10(1):89

Google Scholar 

Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25(9):603–605

Google Scholar 

Luchini C, Veronese N, Nottegar A et al (2021) Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools. Pharm Stat 20(1):185–195

Google Scholar 

Casella DP, Fox JA, Schneck FX et al (2013) Cost analysis of pediatric robot-assisted and laparoscopic pyeloplasty. J Urol 189(3):1083–1086

Google Scholar 

Chan YY, Durbin-Johnson B, Sturm RM et al (2017) Outcomes after pediatric open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty at academic institutions. J Pediatr Urol 13(1):41–49

Google Scholar 

Ebert KM, Nicassio L, Alpert SA et al (2020) Surgical outcomes are equivalent after pure laparoscopic and robotic-assisted pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol 16(6):841–845

Google Scholar 

Esposito C, Masieri L, Castagnetti M et al (2019) Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children with uretero-pelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): technical considerations and results. J Pediatr Urol 15(6):661–667

Google Scholar 

Franco I, Dyer LL, Zelkovic P (2007) Laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the pediatric patient: hand sewn anastomosis versus robotic assisted anastomosis–is there a difference? J Urol 178(4 Pt 1):1483–1486

Google Scholar 

Ganpule A, Jairath A, Singh A et al (2015) Robotic versus conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children less than 20 kg by weight: single-center experience. World J Urol 33(11):1867–1873

Google Scholar 

Liu DB, Ellimoottil C, Flum AS et al (2014) Contemporary national comparison of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted laparoscopic pediatric pyeloplasty. J Pediatr Urol 10(4):610–615

Google Scholar 

Monn MF, Bahler CD, Schneider EB et al (2013) Trends in robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in pediatric patients. Urology 81(6):1336–1341

Google Scholar 

Neheman A, Kord E, Zisman A et al (2018) Comparison of robotic pyeloplasty and standard laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants: a bi-institutional study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(4):467–470

Google Scholar 

Reinhardt S, Ifaoui IB, Thorup J (2017) Robotic surgery start-up with a fellow as the console surgeon. Scand J Urol 51(4):335–338

Google Scholar 

Riachy E, Cost NG, Defoor WR et al (2013) Pediatric standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty: a comparative single institution study. J Urol 189(1):283–287

Google Scholar 

Silay MS, Spinoit AF, Undre S et al (2016) Global minimally invasive pyeloplasty study in children: Results from the Pediatric Urology Expert Group of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urologists working party. J Pediatr Urol 12(4):221–229

Google Scholar 

Silay MS, Danacioglu O, Ozel K et al (2020) Laparoscopy versus robotic-assisted pyeloplasty in children: preliminary results of a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 38(8):1841–1848

Google Scholar 

Song SH, Lee C, Jung J et al (2017) A comparative study of pediatric open pyeloplasty, laparoscopy-assisted extracorporeal pyeloplasty, and robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty. PLoS ONE 12(4):e175026

Google Scholar 

Subotic U, Rohard I, Weber DM et al (2012) A minimal invasive surgical approach for children of all ages with ureteropelvic junction obstruction. J Pediatr Urol 8(4):354–358

Google Scholar 

Tam YH, Pang K, Wong YS et al (2018) From laparoscopic pyeloplasty to robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in primary and reoperative repairs for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(8):1012–1018

Google Scholar 

Wong YS, Pang K, Tam YH (2021) Comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. laparoscopic pyeloplasty in infants aged 12 months or less. Front Pediatr 9:647139

Google Scholar 

Pérez-Marchán M, Pérez-Brayfield M (2022) Comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty vs. robot-assisted pyeloplasty for the management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Front Pediatr 10:1038454

Google Scholar 

Li J, Chen J, Jia J et al (2024) Comparison of robot-assisted single-port-plus-one pyeloplasty vs. laparoscopic single-port pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children. Front Pediatr 12:1371514

Google Scholar 

Bindi E, Cobellis G, Hoen LA et al (2024) Has robot-assisted pyeloplasty reached outcome parity with laparoscopic pyeloplasty in children ,15 kg? A Paediatric YAU international multi-center study. J Pediatr Urol 20(6):1154–1159

Google Scholar 

Andolfi C, Lombardo AM, Aizen J et al (2022) Laparoscopic and robotic pyeloplasty as minimally invasive alternatives to the open approach for the treatment of uretero-pelvic junction obstruction in infants: a multi-institutional comparison of outcomes and learning curves. World J Urol 40(4):1049–1056

CAS  Google Scholar 

Sun L, Zhao D, Shen Y et al (2023) Laparoscopic versus robot-assisted pyeloplasty in infants and young children. Asian J Surg 46(2):868–873

Google Scholar 

González ST, Rosito TE, Tur AB et al (2022) Multicenter comparative study of open, laparoscopic, and robotic pyeloplasty in the pediatric population for the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO). Int Braz J Urol 48(6):961–968

Google Scholar 

Koga H, Murakami H, Seo S et al (2023) Retroperitoneoscopic pyeloplasty for ureteropelvic junction obstruction in children: value of robotic assistance. J Pediatr Surg 58(7):1291–1295

Google Scholar 

Hu Z, Chen S, Wang Z et al (2023) The application of artificial technology in pediatric pyeloplasty the efficacy analysis of robotic-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty in the treatment of ureteropelvic junction obstruction. Front Pediatr 11:1209359

Google Scholar 

Kim S, Canter D, Leone N et al (2008) A comparative study between laparoscopic and robotically assisted pyeloplasty in the pediatric population. J Urol 179(4S):357

Google Scholar 

Lin L, Chu H, Murad MH et al (2018) Empirical comparison of publication bias tests in meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 33(8):1260–1267

Google Scholar 

Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634

CAS  Google Scholar 

Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50(4):1088–1101

CAS  Google Scholar 

Zhang Y, Ouyang W, Xu H et al (2019) Secondary management for recurrent ureteropelvic junction obstruction after pyeloplasty: a comparison of re-do robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty and conventional laparoscopic pyeloplasty. Urol Int 103(4):466–472

Google Scholar 

Varda BK, Wang Y, Chung BI et al (2018) Has the robot caught up? National trends in utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for open, laparoscopic, and robotic pediatric pyeloplasty in the United States from 2003 to 2015. J Pediatr Urol 14(4):331–336

Google Scholar