ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Retrospective analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of giant pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Differences in management and outcomes between pheochromocytomas and sympathetic paragangliomas.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the safety and effectiveness of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery and traditional laparoscopic surgery in the treatment of giant pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (PPGL). A retrospective analysis was conducted using the data of patients who underwent surgery at our institution between January 2013 and November 2023 and whose postoperative pathological examination confirmed PPGL (n = 84). Patients were divided into the robot-assisted (n = 33) and laparoscopic (n = 51) groups. Baseline data and intraoperative and postoperative recovery conditions of the two groups were compared. There was no significant difference in the baseline data between the two groups. The time to resume food intake in the robot-assisted group was shorter than that in the laparoscopic group [2 (1-2) vs. 3 (2-3) days, p < 0.001], and the incidence of postoperative morbidity was also lower (15.2% vs. 43.1%, p = 0.009); however, operating room time was longer [265 (240-370) vs. 245 (205-297.5) min, p = 0.039], and overall hospitalization costs were higher [80336.38 (72,014.3-101,555.39) vs. 60,102.13 (43,059.205-88085.35) CNY, p = 0.003]. This study results indicate that robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery has a lower postoperative complication rate and faster postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery. However, the surgery is costlier and operating room time is longer than with traditional laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery can be considered for giant PPGL if the patient's financial condition permits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40335861What 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.