ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted surgery for treating urachal anomalies in pediatric patients.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report a multicenter experience with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for pediatric urachal anomalies and to compare laparoscopic versus robotic-assisted approaches.
methodsA retrospective review was performed of all patients with urachal remnants treated with MIS between January 2019 and January 2025. Demographic, perioperative, and outcome data were collected and analyzed.
resultsTwenty-three patients (13 males) with a median age of 5.9 years (range 6 months–14 years) underwent surgery for symptomatic urachal anomalies. Fifteen patients (65.2%) were treated laparoscopically and eight (34.8%) robotically. Complete excision was achieved in all cases. Median operative time was 45 min (range 33–73). A bladder catheter was maintained for 24 h postoperatively, and all patients were discharged within 48–72 h. Histopathology confirmed urachal remnants without evidence of malignancy. No intraoperative complications occurred. One minor postoperative complication (Clavien–Dindo I) was reported. Median follow-up was 2 years (range 5 months–6 years).
conclusionMIS represents the gold standard for the treatment of urachal remnants. Both laparoscopy and robotic-assisted surgery are safe and effective. The robotic approach may offer ergonomic and technical advantages. Indocyanine green (ICG) fluorescence appears to facilitate lesion identification and guide dissection.
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.