ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2020
Utilization of robotics for retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection in pediatric and non-pediatric hospitals.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy and safety of robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for testicular cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Robot-assisted retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in testicular cancer: state of the art and future perspectives.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Robotic-assisted laparoscopy in pediatric surgical oncology: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2023Review
- Robotic retroperitoneal lymph node dissection for paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma in adolescents: a case series.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Retrograde stent with external string for pediatric robotic pyeloplasty: does it reduce cost and complications?Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to determine recent trends in use of robotics and laparoscopy for pediatric retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection (RPLND) in pediatric and non-pediatric hospitals. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from 29 hospitals in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), and data from 14 states in the State Inpatient Databases (SID), between 2008 and 2014. The study population was comprised of patients aged ≥ 10 years undergoing RPLND, with an inpatient diagnosis of testicular or paratesticular cancer, based on international classification of disease (ICD) codes. Robotic approach was identified by the presence of an ICD procedure code modifier. During the study period, a total of 90 RPLNDs were performed in pediatric hospitals (median patient age 16 years). Of these, 4 (4.4%) were performed robotically. A total of 3120 RPLNDs were performed in non-pediatric hospitals (median patient age: 32 years). Among these, 269 (8.6%) were performed robotically, with an increasing trend in the use of robotic RPLND (adjusted annual increase in probability of undergoing robotic vs. open procedure: 16%; 95% CI 8-24). Undergoing robotic RPLND was associated with a reduction in postoperative length of stay of 3.5 days (95% CI 2.9, 4.1). Open surgical approaches comprise the vast majority of RPLNDs performed at pediatric hospitals. This is in contrast with trends in non-pediatric hospitals where robotic RPLND is being increasingly utilized. Future research is necessary to investigate this discrepancy in adopting minimally invasive techniques for RPLND in pediatric centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.