ReviewCurrent urology reports2014
Robotic surgery in pediatric urology.
Review in Current urology reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effective intracorporeal space in robot-assisted multiquadrant surgery in a pediatric inanimate model.Journal of robotic surgery · 2021Article
- Advances in robotic surgery for pediatric ureteropelvic junction obstruction and vesicoureteral reflux: history, present, and future.World journal of urology · 2020Review
- Endoscopic laser-ablation for the treatment of orthotopic and ectopic ureteroceles in dogs: 13 cases (2008-2017).Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2019Article
- Robotic Ureteral Reconstruction in the Pediatric Population.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Review
- Is outpatient robotic pyeloplasty feasible?Journal of robotic surgery · 2016Observational
- Pyeloplasty in children: perioperative results and long-term outcomes of robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery compared to open surgery.Pediatric surgery international · 2016Article
- Evolving surgical management of pediatric vesicoureteral reflux: is open ureteral reimplantation still the 'Gold Standard'?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Minimally invasive laparoscopic procedures for urological diseases in children have proven to be safe and effective, with outcomes comparable to open procedures. Technical advances, including improved instruments and high-definition cameras, have contributed to the expanded role of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) in children. The major drawback to laparoscopy has been the relatively steep learning curve due to the technical difficulties of suturing and the limitations of instrument dexterity and range of motion. Recently, robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RAS) has gained popularity in both adult and pediatric urology. RAS has several advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, particularly in the improved exposure via magnified 3-dimensional view and simplification of suturing with the increased degree of freedom and movement of the robotic arm. This review discusses the role of RAS in pediatric urology and provides technical aspects of RAS in specific urologic procedures as well.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24658829What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.