ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Robot-Assisted vs. Open Appendicovesicostomy in Pediatric Urology: A Systematic Review and Single-Center Case Series.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The wider expansion of pediatric robotic urology: exploring the patterns of adoption in complex bladder reconstruction.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative outcomes of robot-assisted and open appendicovesicostomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of efficacy and safety between robotic-assisted and open surgery in treating neurogenic bladder: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic surgery for paediatric neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: a systematic review.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Global research trends in robot-assisted pediatric urological surgery: a visualized bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Mitrofanoff in Children: Versatile Laparoscopic Strategies-From Low-Resource to Non-Robotic High-Cost Settings in an Exploratory Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Pediatric robotic urologic procedures: Indications and outcomes.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Appendicovesicostomy (APV) is the preferred choice of continent catheterizable channels in pediatric urology. The introduction of robot-assisted laparoscopic techniques has been correlated to superior cosmesis and convalescence and is now increasingly implemented for APV procedures. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature comparing open vs. robotic APV regarding possible differences in postoperative outcomes and to evaluate these findings with our own initial experiences with robotic APV compared to our previous open procedures. Methods: We evaluated the first five patients undergoing robotic APV at our institution and compared 1-year outcomes with a consecutive series of 12 patients undergoing open APV. In a systematic literature review, we screened studies from PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL comparing open and robotic APV in pediatric urology (current to December 2021) and performed meta-analyses on postoperative outcomes comparing the two groups and evaluated the grade of evidence. Results: We found significantly shortened postoperative length of stay in the robotic group ( Conclusion: Robotic APV is equally safe to the conventional open approach with additional advantages in postoperative hospitalization length.
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.