ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic Malone appendicostomy: a 6-year perspective.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative outcomes of robot-assisted and open appendicovesicostomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted pull-through procedures for anorectal malformation: a systematic review.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Pooled 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA robotic-assisted laparoscopic approach to appendicostomy offers the benefits of a minimally invasive approach to patients who would typically necessitate an open procedure, those with a larger body habitus, and those requiring combined complex colorectal and urologic reconstructive procedures. We present our experience performing robotic-assisted appendicostomies with a focus on patient selection, perioperative factors, and functional outcomes.
methodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent a robotic-assisted appendicostomy/neoappendicostomy at our institution was performed.
resultsTwelve patients underwent robotic-assisted appendicostomy (n = 8) and neoappendicostomy (n = 4) at a range of 8.8-25.8 years. Five patients had a weight percentile > 50% for their age. Seven patients underwent combined procedures. Median operative time for appendicostomy/neoappendicostomy only was 185.0 min. Complications included surgical site infection (n = 3), stricture requiring minor operative revision (n = 2), conversion to an open procedure due to inadequate appendiceal length (prior to developing our technique for robotic neoappendicostomies; n = 1), and granuloma (n = 1). At a median follow-up of 10.8 months (range 1.7-74.3 months), 91.7% of patients were consistently clean with antegrade enemas. DISCUSSION: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic appendicostomy and neoappendicostomy with cecal flap is a safe and effective operative approach. A robotic approach can potentially overcome the technical difficulties encountered in obese patients and can aid in patients requiring both a Malone and a Mitrofanoff in a single, combined minimally invasive procedure.
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.