ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Robotic redo surgery in hirschsprung disease: results, considerations and perspectives.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRedo surgery in Hirschsprung disease(HSCR) can be very challenging. Historically, open surgery has been regarded as the preferred approach for complex redo procedures. Aim of the study is to present a single-center experience with Robotic Redo surgery in HSCR.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted. Charts of all HSCR patients previously subjected to pull-trough(P-T) that underwent Robotic Redo Surgery(Redo P-T, Redundant Rectal Pouch Excision and Miles-like procedure) in our Center between 2017 and 2025 were reviewed. The Primary objective is to state feasibility, safeness and effectiveness of Robotic Redo Surgery in HSCR. A secondary objective is to compare safety and effectiveness of Robotic Redo P-T with Laparoscopic and Open Redo P-T.
results16 Robotic Redo P-T, 3 Redundant Rectal Pouch Excisions and 2 Miles-like procedures were performed. Overall, no intraoperative complications were registered and post-operative major complication rate (Clavien Madadi > = III) was acceptable (13% of Robotic Redo P-T procedures, none in the Rectal Pouch Excision and Miles-like groups). Continence was optimal for the latter two procedures and, in accordance with the literature, suboptimal for Redo P-T(excellent-good in 64% of patients). When comparing Robotic Redo P-T(n:16) VS Laparoscopic(n:10) and VS Open Redo P-T(n:5), intra-operative complications were respectively 0, 10% and 40%(p:0.40, p:0.05) and post-operative complications were 19%, 40% and 40%(p:0.40, p:0.50). Continence was comparable for robotic and laparoscopy.
conclusionsRobotic redo surgery in HSCR is feasible, safe and effective. Robotic surgery qualities can be particularly advantageous in case of potential challenging pelvic dissection. More data are required to confirm our results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42645606What 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.