ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Evaluating surgical strategies for pediatric congenital choledochal cysts: a multicenter retrospective study and network meta-analysis.
Article in Frontiers in 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.
- Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic-assisted surgery for choledochal cyst in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
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
Objective: This study compared the efficacy and safety of open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted surgeries for pediatric congenital choledochal cysts (CCC) using network meta-analysis, with retrospective cohort data to validate findings. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, 28 cohort studies involving a total of 3,672 patients were included. Key outcomes assessed included operative time, hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative bile leakage rate, and postoperative bowel obstruction rate. A Bayesian model was employed for the network meta-analysis, with heterogeneity and consistency checks as well as publication bias assessments. Furthermore, a retrospective cohort study was conducted on 72 CCC patients who underwent surgery between January 2010 and January 2025 at two medical centers [60 cases in the open surgery group [OSG] and 12 cases in the laparoscopic surgery group [LSG]]. These data were incorporated into the meta-analysis to evaluate consistency with prior findings. Results: The 28 studies (2007-2025) included two three-arm and 26 two-arm studies. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment identified biases in selection and follow-up in some studies. Open surgery had the shortest operative time (MD = -1.101 vs. laparoscopic, 95% CI: -1.368 to -0.834; MD = -1.39 vs. robotic, 95% CI: -1.69 to -1.09), followed by robotic-assisted, then laparoscopic surgery. Robotic-assisted surgery had the shortest hospital stay (MD = -1.98 vs. open, 95% CI: -2.72 to -1.19), followed by laparoscopic. Laparoscopic surgery had the least blood loss (MD = 46.76 vs. open, 95% CI: 10.36-83.64), followed by robotic-assisted. Robotic-assisted surgery had the lowest bile leakage rate; laparoscopic had the lowest bowel obstruction rate (OR = 0.11 vs. open, 95% CI: 0.01-0.6). Retrospective data showed OSG had shorter operative time (3.52 ± 0.82 vs. 5.61 ± 1.24 h, Conclusions: Robotic-assisted surgery excels in reducing hospital stay and bile leakage, laparoscopic surgery minimizes blood loss and bowel obstruction, while open surgery is fastest but inferior in other outcomes. These findings guide CCC surgical decisions, though randomized trials are needed.
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.