Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39363967›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2024

Comparative study of robotic-assisted single-incision-plus-one port and single-incision laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision.

Ling Zhang, Shan Chen, Yang Lin, Jianbin Wang, Xinyi Qiu, Lizhi Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ling ZhangDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Provincial Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Shan ChenDepartment of Laboratory, Fuzhou Second General Hospital, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Yang LinDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Provincial Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Jianbin WangDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Provincial Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Xinyi QiuDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Provincial Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.
Lizhi LiDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Provincial Clinical Medical College, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, Fujian, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of robotic-assisted single-incision-plus-one-port laparoscopic choledochal cyst excision (R-SILC + 1) and single-incision laparoscopic choledochal cyst (SILC) in treating pediatric choledochal cyst (CDC). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients diagnosed with CDC in our hospital from June 2021 to October 2023. Among them, patients underwent either R-SILC + 1 or SILC procedures. Demographic parameters, operative details, and postoperative outcomes were studied. Results: A total of forty-nine patients were included, with 23 children undergoing R-SILC + 1 and 26 children undergoing SILC. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data, postoperative pain scores, and postoperative complication rates between the two groups (all Conclusion: Compared with the SILC group, the R-SILC + 1 group demonstrated clear advantages in treating pediatric CDC, but it is associated with a prolonged learning curve and operation time, and high costs. With improvements in physician experience and technological advancements, its potential will be further unleashed.

Indexed as

choledochal cysthepaticojejunostomypediatricrobotic-assistedsingle-incision laparoscopic surgery

Identifiers

PMID39363967
PMCPMC11447616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.