ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Comparative analysis of Da Vinci robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery for congenital choledochal cyst in neonates.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2025. 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.
- Robotic-assisted surgery in children under 10 kg: a systematic review.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Robot-Versus Laparoscopy-Assisted Resection of Choledochal Cysts in Infants Aged Less than 3 Months.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted radical resection for choledochal cysts in infants under three months of age: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic-assisted surgery for choledochal cyst in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Robotic excision of choledochal cysts with Roux-en-Y hepatico-jejunostomy in children: surgical technique, experience and outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to compare and analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of Da Vinci robotic surgery (RS) versus traditional laparoscopic surgery (LS) for the treatment of congenital choledochal cyst (CCC) in neonates.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed sixty-seven neonatal cases of CCC admitted to our hospital between December 2018 and December 2024. The cases were categorized into the robotic group (n = 32) and the laparoscopic group (n = 35) based on the surgical technique employed. We systematically compared baseline data, intraoperative metrics, and postoperative recovery between the two groups, focusing on total operative time, biliary-intestinal anastomosis time, and postoperative recovery outcomes.
resultsThe two groups were comparable regarding baseline characteristics such as age, gender, weight, and cyst diameter (P > 0.05), with no significant differences in preoperative general conditions (P > 0.05); The total operative time was longer for RS compared to LS (208.54 ± 10.43 min vs. 194.54 ± 17.21 min, P = 0.016). However, the time required for biliary-intestinal anastomosis was shorter in RS (38.25 ± 9.78 min vs. 52.40 ± 9.83 min, P < 0.001), and intraoperative bleeding was significantly lower (P < 0.05); Postoperative abdominal drainage was significantly reduced in RS, with a shorter duration for drainage tube removal, demonstrating a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the overall complication rate between the two groups.
conclusionDa Vinci robotic-assisted surgery is safe and feasible for the treatment of neonatal CCC. RS offers advantages such as a shorter biliary-intestinal anastomosis time, reduced tissue trauma, and faster recovery, warranting its promotion in neonatal surgical practices.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
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.