SynthesisBMC pediatrics2025
Early outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic splenectomy in pediatric population: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC pediatrics, 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.
- Pediatric Robotic Surgery in Romania: Review of the First 71 Cases Using the da Vinci Platform.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic splenectomy (LS) is currently well-established as a standard technique for splenectomy. Robotic splenectomy (RS) is being introduced as a new minimally invasive alternative. The current study aims to directly compare RS and LS specifically in the pediatric population undergoing splenectomy for non-traumatic indications.
methodsWe performed a systematic search in four databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL in November 2024. We included studies that compared outcomes of RS and LS in pediatric patients. We extracted the amount of blood loss, operation time, length of hospital stay, the number of patients who needed blood transfusion or were converted to open approach and post-operative complications. Finally, RevMan software was adopted for meta-analysis.
resultsSix retrospective studies met our eligibility criteria and were included in the current systematic review and meta-analysis with a total of 248 patients, of which 123 and 125 children underwent RS and LS respectively. Blood loss was significantly lower in RS group (MD = -56.95, P = 0.01). Operation time, hospital stay, the need for blood transfusion and post-operative complications showed no significant difference between both RS and LS groups. Despite the overall good quality of the included studies, the GRADE quality of evidence was considered very low due to the observational nature of the included studies, small sample sizes and high variability between outcomes of different studies.
conclusionOur study guides the existing literature towards a possible non-inferior status of robotic splenectomy compared to the well-established laparoscopic splenectomy in most clinical outcomes. Blood loss was significantly lower in children who underwent robotic splenectomy, but small sample size limits generatability of such finding. The challenge of higher costs of robotic splenectomy needs to be addressed in well-designed cost-effectiveness studies.
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.