ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robot-assisted choledochal cysts resection in children across all ages: a larger cohort single-center experience with 318 Cases.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 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.
- Robotic-assisted choledochal cyst surgery in infants: are we operating too early?Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted resection of abdominal lymphatic malformations in children: a novel minimally invasive strategy for complex lesions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Robot-assisted radical resection for choledochal cysts in infants under three months of age: a multicenter retrospective study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
Abstract
Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) is an emerging alternative to laparoscopic surgery (LAS) for the treatment of choledochal cysts. We aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted choledochal cyst resection (RACC) in children from neonates to 16-year-olds. In this retrospective study, 318 patients undergoing RAS between April 2020 and July 2025 were compared with 489 patients undergoing LAS between January 2015 and July 2025. The robotic cohort was stratified into six age-based subgroups: R1 (neonates), R2 (> 1 to ≤ 3 months), R3 (> 3 to ≤ 12 months), R4 (> 12 to ≤ 36 months), R5 (> 36 to ≤ 120 months), and R6 (> 120 to ≤ 192 months). The overall postoperative complication rate was significantly lower in the RAS group compared to the LAS group (p = 0.020), with significantly reduced rates of bile leakage and anastomotic stenosis (p = 0.032). The reoperation rate was also significantly lower in the RAS group (p = 0.042). Within the RAS group, the robotic installation time was significantly longer in the R1 group (p = 0.0328). Among patients older than 3 months, the total operative time was significantly longer in the R6 group (p = 0.0438), while the R3 group had a significantly shorter total operative time compared to other groups (p = 0.0018). Additionally, the robotic console time was significantly longer in the R6 group compared to other groups (p = 0.0248). RACC is safe and effective for children across all ages, demonstrating lower complication and reoperation rates compared to laparoscopic surgery. Robotic surgery involving neonates or older children with large cysts should be performed at experienced pediatric centers.
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.