ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic splenectomy in children: a costeffectiveness study.
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 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic splenectomy in pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing laparoscopic and robotic splenectomy: A systematic review of the outcomes.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic-Assisted vs. Laparoscopic Splenectomy in Children: A Systematic Review and Up-to-Date Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Transperitoneal robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal duplication: a comparative clinical analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Preoperative high-precision three-dimensional reconstruction in laparoscopic splenectomy for supramassive splenomegaly: a case report and literature review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laparoscopic elective splenectomy is considered as a safe surgical treatment of spleen non-traumatic blood disorders. However, robotic assisted splenectomy is becoming a promising alternative, although there are scarce studies in pediatric patients. Our aim is to compare the effectiveness and associated costs of both procedures in children. A single-institution retrospective study was performed among consecutive children undergoing splenectomy between 2004 and 2021, who were divided according to the surgical approach: LAS group (laparoscopic splenectomy) and RAS group (robotic assisted splenectomy). Demographics, clinical features, intraoperative blood loss, surgery time, length of hospital stay (LOS), postoperative complications, need for postoperative blood transfusion, readmission rate and economic data were compared. A total of 84 patients were included (23 LAS group; 61 RAS group), without demographic or clinical differences between them. RAS patients presented lower intraoperative blood loss (42 ± 15 vs. 158 ± 39 ml; p < 0.021) and shorter surgery time (135 ± 39 vs. 182 ± 68 min; p = 0.043), with no differences in median LOS (3 days in both groups). No intraoperative complications or conversion was reported. Five postoperative complications were observed: 4 in LAS patients (17.4%) versus only one in RAS (1.6%; p = 0.021). One reintervention was required in LAS group due to hemoperitoneum 12 h after splenectomy. RAS patients had lower postoperative blood transfusion requirements (1.6% vs. 13.0%; p = 0.025) and lower readmission rate (3.3 vs. 17.4%; p = 0.042). No differences were observed when comparing the median economic costs ($25,645 LAS vs. $28,135 RAS; p = 0.215). Robotic assisted splenectomy may be considered as a safe and feasible option in children compared to the traditional laparoscopic approach. Level of evidence: III.
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.