ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Robot-assisted vs. laparoscopic-assisted surgery for choledochal cyst in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Comprehensive analyses specifically comparing robot-assisted surgery(RS) and laparoscopic surgery(LS) for choledochal cyst(CC) in children remained scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RS vs. LS for pediatric CC. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies published up to December 31, 2025, that compared laparoscopic and robot-assisted surgery for CC in children. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 18. Results: A total of 19 retrospective studies were included. Meta-analysis results demonstrated that the RS group had significantly lower incidences of postoperative biliary stones (OR = 0.10, 95% CI: 0.01-0.89), bile leakage (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.11-0.70), anastomotic stricture (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.65), and overall complications (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.13-0.51) compared to the LS group. Total operative time was longer in the RS group (SMD = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.30-1.74), whereas intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI: -2.19 to -0.24). Additionally, the RS group exhibited shorter hepaticojejunostomy time (SMD = -1.43; 95% CI: -2.30 to -0.56), drainage tube indwelling time (SMD = -0.74; 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.47), postoperative fasting time (SMD = -0.80; 95% CI: -1.11 to -0.50), and hospital stay (SMD = -1.16; 95% CI: -2.08 to -0.23). No significant differences were observed in other outcomes, including postoperative cholangitis (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.22-1.57), residual cyst (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.02-1.94), incision infection (OR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.02-1.41), intestinal obstruction (OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.40-2.33), pancreatitis (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.08-6.47), pancreatic leakage (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.10-1.92), and conversion to open surgery (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.36-1.75). Furthermore, no statistically significant difference was found in cyst excision time between the two groups (SMD = -1.77; 95% CI: -3.91 to -0.77). Conclusion: In the treatment of pediatric CC, RS offered potential advantages over LS in terms of reducing postoperative biliary-related complications, decreasing intraoperative blood loss, accelerating postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, and shortening hospital stay. Although RS required longer operative time, this limitation might be mitigated with accumulated surgical experience and technological advancements. However, current evidence is primarily derived from retrospective studies conducted in Asian countries and lacked long-term follow-up data. Well-designed multicenter prospective studies or randomized controlled trials were urgently needed to provide higher-level evidence and further validate our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.