ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2026
Robotic-assisted
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In the past decade, advancements in robotic surgery have significantly expanded its application into diverse fields, including urological, gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and gynecological procedures. However, comparative outcome data between robotic and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in pediatric patients are scarce. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the clinical utility of robotic cholecystectomy (RC) by comparing its outcomes with those of LC. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted using patient records from a single institution involving individuals who underwent RC or LC. Patients who had undergone open cholecystectomy or previous open abdominal surgeries were excluded. Matching criteria included operative age, body mass index, and total bilirubin levels. Baseline and outcome variables were compared using appropriate statistical tests to assess significance. Results: Groups were well-matched for demographic variables. Regression-adjusted analysis showed no significant difference in operative time between RC and LC and hospital stay length (P > 0.05). Complication rates were higher in the RC group (25.0% Conclusion: The baseline characteristics between the 2 groups were well-matched. While most outcomes showed no statistically significant differences, the RC group had significantly higher postoperative analgesic use and complication rates. These findings highlight the need for careful patient selection and further studies to evaluate the safety profile of RC in pediatric patients.
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.