ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Evaluation of robot-assisted laparoscopic versus conventional laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair in children.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic esophageal hiatal hernia and anti-reflux surgery: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of robotic versus laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic approach is the gold standard for repairing hiatal hernia (HH). Robotic technology is now widely accepted, but it is rarely used in children with HH. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical effect of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery (RALS) and conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) in the treatment of HH in children. A retrospective study was carried out in patients undergoing elective robot-assisted laparoscopic or conventional laparoscopic HH repair at a tertiary academic hospital from January 2020 to December 2022, and patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in this study. We compared the characteristics and clinical results of patients to understand the effects of the two surgical methods. Forty-six patients (CLS, group 1, n = 25; RALS, group 2, n = 21) met the inclusion criteria. All operations were performed by one experienced pediatric surgeon. In this study, no significant differences were found in terms of gender, age, weight, size of HH, total operation times, the effective operation time (excluding setup time) and complications between group 1 and group 2. (P = 0.979, P = 0.438, P = 0.265, P = 0.800, P = 0.122, P = 0.427 and P = 0.478, respectively). However, the intraoperative bleeding, the intensive care unit (ICU) admission, postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS) and postoperative fasting time were significantly less for RALS (P = 0.016, P = 0.040, P = 0.035 and P = 0.025, respectively). Meanwhile, the overall charges were significantly higher in group 2 (P < 0.01). Despite higher charges for robotic-assisted HH repair, it is a safe and reliable alternative to CLS and was associated with better outcomes in children.
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.