ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Robot-assisted radiofrequency ablation versus open resection for osteoid osteoma: an analysis of perioperative outcomes and a rare case of malignant transformation.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robot-assisted targeting for osteoid osteoma: a systematic review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Osteoid osteoma (OO) is a rare benign bone tumor predominantly affecting young individuals, with malignant transformation reported only in exceptional cases. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between robot-assisted radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and open surgical resection for OO and report a rare case of malignant transformation to osteosarcoma (OS). Methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed data from 84 patients with OO treated between January 2014 and January 2024. Twenty-eight patients underwent robot-assisted RFA and 56 underwent open surgical resection. The evaluated outcomes included operative time, intraoperative blood loss, hospitalization duration, pain relief, and total medical costs. Results: The RFA group demonstrated a clear minimally invasive advantage, with significantly less intraoperative blood loss (6.4 vs. 78.2 ml, p < 0.001) and a shorter hospital stay (3.9 vs. 6.6 days, p = 0.003). However, the procedure required a longer operative time (130.0 vs. 97.6 min, p = 0.003) and incurred higher costs (35,715 vs. 26,959 CNY, p = 0.022). Both groups achieved a 100% initial success rate. The RFA group exhibited superior early pain relief, with significantly lower VAS scores on postoperative day 1 (p < 0.001). Two cases of malignant transformation to OS occurred in the RFA cohort. Conclusion: Robot-assisted RFA offers minimally invasive advantages over open resection, providing reduced blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and faster pain relief. However, its associated longer operative time, higher cost, and the potential for rare malignant transformation necessitate careful patient selection and stringent long-term follow-up.
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.