ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Robot-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of paediatric neuroblastoma: a single-centre retrospective study.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2026. 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 minimally invasive surgery in paediatric neuroblastoma: does the actual technology truly expand selection criteria?Pediatric surgery international · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeuroblastoma is the most common extracranial solid tumour in childhood. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is increasingly used in selected patients with neuroblastic tumours, comparative data between robot-assisted and conventional MIS are lacking. MATERIALS AND
methodsA single-centre retrospective study was conducted on 84 patients who underwent minimally invasive resection of neuroblastic tumours between 2008 and 2025. Patients were divided into conventional MIS and robot-assisted surgery groups. Demographic data, tumour characteristics and surgical and oncological outcomes were compared.
resultsThe robot-assisted group included a higher number of patients with Image-Defined Risk Factor (IDRF) ≥ 1 (57% vs. 8%). Robotic surgery was therefore preferentially employed in more complex cases, resulting in higher conversion rate and longer operative time. Despite the higher prevalence of patients with IDRF ≥ 1 in the robotic group, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were comparable between groups. Notably, conversions were not performed for emergency reasons but were based on intraoperative decision-making.
conclusionsRobot-assisted surgery may safely expand selection criteria to selected patients with positive IDRFs, while maintaining oncological principles and without increasing intra and postoperative morbidity.
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.