A Systematic Review of Ureteral Reimplantation Techniques in Endometriosis: Laparoscopic Versus Robotic-Assisted Approach

Stefano Di Michele, Silvia Bramante, Maurizio Rosati, M. Rosati
Journal of clinical medicine · 2024 · vol. 13(19) , pp. 5677 · doi:10.3390/jcm13195677 · PMID:39407736 · W4402762530
review OA: gold CC0 ⤵ 3 in-corpus citations
🔓 Open OA copy View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This systematic review compared laparoscopic and robotic-assisted ureteral reimplantation for endometriosis, finding both safe and effective with comparable complication rates but shorter hospital stays for robotic procedures.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Introduction: Endometriosis, characterized by the presence of endometrial tissue outside the uterus, includes deep endometriosis (DE), which can affect the urinary tract. Ureteral endometriosis (UE) is a rare but significant manifestation that can lead to ureteral obstruction, hydronephrosis, and potential kidney loss. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness and outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted ureteral reimplantation techniques in patients with UE. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted following PRISMA guidelines across PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library, from inception to July 2024. Studies included patients with UE who underwent ureteral reimplantation using laparoscopic or robotic-assisted techniques. Data on patient demographics, surgical technique, duration of surgery, complications, follow-up duration, and clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. Results: Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising 225 patients in the laparoscopic group and 24 in the robotic-assisted group. Lich–Gregoir ureteral reimplantation, with or without a psoas hitch, was the predominant technique used. The average surgery duration was 271.1 min for the laparoscopic group and 310.4 min for the robotic-assisted group. Recurrence rates for UE were 2.95% for laparoscopic and 5.9% for robotic-assisted procedures. The robotic-assisted group had a significantly shorter hospital stay (6.7 days vs. 9.1 days, p < 0.01). Postoperative complication rates were comparable between the two techniques (p = 0.422). Conclusions: Both laparoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques for ureteral reimplantation in UE are safe and effective, with the choice of technique guided by surgeon expertise and specific clinical scenarios. However, the limited number of robotic cases introduces a bias, despite statistical significance.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (47)

Cited by (3)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-04T01:30:01.192114+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:00:01.174412+00:00
pmc
last seen: 2026-05-13T20:22:03.195721+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-06-04T00:32:22.903660+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK