SynthesisPediatric surgery international2026
Comparative outcomes of robot-assisted and open appendicovesicostomy in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAppendicovesicostomy (APV, Mitrofanoff procedure) is widely performed in children requiring clean intermittent catheterization. This study aimed to systematically compare the perioperative and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted versus open APV in pediatric patients.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2026 for comparative studies evaluating robot-assisted and open APV in children. Primary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included surgical reintervention, channel stenosis, postoperative incontinence, wound infection, and overall complications. Pooled mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.4.
resultsSix studies involving 270 pediatric patients (147 robotic and 123 open) were included. There was no significant difference in operative time between the two approaches. Robot-assisted surgery was associated with significantly lower estimated blood loss and shorter hospital stay. No significant differences were observed in surgical reintervention, channel stenosis, postoperative incontinence, wound infection, or overall complications.
conclusionsRobot-assisted APV is a safe and feasible alternative to the open approach in pediatric patients. It may offer advantages in terms of reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stay while achieving comparable functional and complication outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645597What 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.