SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025
Robotic surgery for Hirschsprung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laparoscopic Versus Robotic Yancey-Soave Primary Pull-Through in Rectosigmoid Hirschsprung Disease: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Precision minimally invasive strategy for Hirschsprung's disease: from anatomical resection to whole-cycle functional management-a review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Robot-assisted surgery for Hirschsprung disease in children: initial single-center experience.Frontiers in surgery · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The role of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) in Hirschsprung disease (HD) remains unclear. Although RAS could facilitate rectal dissection in challenging cases, its use could be limited by working space and instrument size in infants. This review aimed to assess the current indications and limitations of RAS in management of HD. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, including studies reporting RAS for HD. Data synthesis followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was organized into three groups: primary pull-through in infants, pull-through in late-diagnosed cases (age > 1 year), and redo-surgeries. Outcomes included mortality, perioperative morbidity, and long-term functional results. A meta-analysis was performed, comparing outcomes for RAS and laparoscopy in infants. Since 2000, 36 studies reported on RAS for HD, among which 16 were included (n = 515). Primary pull-through in infants was reported in 8 studies (n = 390), without conversion or intraoperative complication. Five studies compared RAS to laparoscopy reporting a lower blood loss and higher costs with RAS, but no difference in operative time, postoperative complications or functional outcomes. Five studies reported late pull-through procedures (n = 91; ages 1-18). No difference in hospital stay was observed, though one study reported fewer anastomotic complications with RAS. Regarding redo-surgery (n = 34), no intraoperative complication or conversion occurred. Robotic-assisted surgery may improve pelvic dissection in selected cases of HD, particularly in older children with delayed diagnosis or requiring redo procedures. Its superiority in primary pull-through for infants remains uncertain, but it appears beneficial in complex or challenging cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41028657What 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.