ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Comparison of laparoscopic and robotic surgery of choledochal cyst in pediatrics: single center experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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.
- Feasibility and perioperative safety of robotic liver resection using the da Vinci SP system: early single-center case series.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic-assisted surgery for choledochal cyst in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Global bibliometric analysis of molecular imaging-guided robotic-assisted surgery: publication dynamics, thematic evolution, authorship patterns, and disciplinary landscape development (1982-2025).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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, laparoscopic and robot-assisted procedures have become increasingly common for treating pediatric choledochal cysts. This retrospective study aims to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of these procedures in pediatric choledochal cyst cases.
methodsBetween April 2017 and September 2023, 60 patients were enrolled in this study; laparoscopic procedures were applied in 45 patients, and robot-assisted procedures in 15. We collected clinical data, including all patients' demographic information, the cyst's type and size, and clinical outcomes through a review of medical records. We also conducted a satisfaction survey using validated questionnaires (Glasgow Children's Benefit Inventory, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index) and additional supplementary questions.
resultsFor the anastomosis site size (mm), the laparoscopy group (9.38, [5.09;11.55]) showed larger sizes than the robot-assisted group (7.26, [3.68;8.69]) (p = 0.0381). Hospitalization days (d) were longer for the laparoscopy group (14.64, [9;16]) compared to the robot-assisted group (11.13, [8;12]) (p = 0.0224). Although the complications were not statistically significant, the robot-assisted group had no complications. In contrast, the laparoscopy group reported 2 cases of pancreatitis, 1 case of A-loop syndrome, 1 case of chyle ascites, and 1 case of wound complication. A total of 17 patients responded to the satisfaction survey (28% response rate).
conclusionRobot-assisted surgery is a feasible and effective method for treating pediatric choledochal cysts, and its surgical outcomes are comparable with those of laparoscopic procedures.
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.