ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
Exploring the frontier in robotic pediatric cancer surgery: when to move forward and when to stop.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evolution of robotic-assisted resection of pediatric neuroblastic tumors: a retrospective analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Evolution of robotic-assisted resection of pediatric neuroblastic tumors: a retrospective analysis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of paediatric neuroblastoma: a single-centre retrospective study.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Robotic-assisted thoracoscopic surgery in children: a safe approach to remove thoracic tumors.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIn recent years, the use of robotic-assisted minimally invasive surgery in pediatric oncology has increased. Despite its benefits, its adoption remains limited. This single-center retrospective analysis examines technical nuances, indications, and surgical limitations to prevent complications.
methodsData from cancer patients treated robotically in 2015-2016 (Group A) and 2020-2022 (Group B) were compared. Decision-making considered tumor characteristics and risks, guided by multidisciplinary tumor board discussions. Data collected included demographics, intra/post-operative details, and tumor classifications. Statistical analysis evaluated influencing factors.
resultsThirty-eight pediatric patients underwent robotic-assisted tumor resection, the median age was 5 years and weight 21.5 kg. Group A had higher median age and weight. Lesions included 23 malignant, 9 borderline, 5 benign cases; neuroblastoma (n = 19) was prevalent procedure and adrenalectomy was the predominant (28.94%). Open conversion occurred in 12 patients (31.58%), mainly due to vascular challenges (23.68%). Intraoperative complications were 10.53%, postoperative 7.9%. About 27% discharged by the third postoperative day; longer stays were needed for complex cases. All resumed post-op chemotherapy as scheduled, and all alive during follow-up.
conclusionsOur study confirms the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted tumor resections in pediatric oncology, even during the learning phase, emphasizing the importance of learning curve, patient selection, and trocar positioning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38806812What 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.