Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34945018›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

Single-Port versus Multiple-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Omar Fahmy, Usama A Fahmy, Nabil A Alhakamy, Mohd Ghani Khairul-Asri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 20 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 20 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 20 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Exercise and pulmonary embolism: a systematic review of exercise safety, feasibility and effectiveness.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Efficacy of different biologics for treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a network meta-analysis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Baseline functioning scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 predict overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: a meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Omar FahmyDepartment of Urology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia.
Usama A FahmyDepartment of Pharmaceutics & Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-6094-5570
Nabil A AlhakamyDepartment of Pharmaceutics & Industrial Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-3826-1519
Mohd Ghani Khairul-AsriDepartment of Urology, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

King Abdul Aziz University (FP-023-43).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy has been reported as a safe and feasible technique. However, recent studies comparing single-port versus multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy have displayed conflicting results.

objectivesTo investigate the benefit of single-port robotic radical prostatectomy and the impact on outcome compared to multiple-port robotic radical prostatectomy.

methodsBased on PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out. Finally, we considered the controlled studies with two cohorts (one cohort for single-port RARP and the other cohort for multiple-port RARP). For statistical analysis, Review Manager (RevMan) software version 5.4 was used. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed to assess the risk of bias.

resultsFive non-randomized controlled studies with 666 patients were included. Single-port robotic radical prostatectomy was associated with shorter hospital stays. Only 60.6% of single-port patients (109/180) required analgesia compared to 90% (224/249) of multiple-port patients (Z = 3.50;

conclusionThe available data on single-port robotic radical prostatectomy is very limited. However, it seems comparable to the multiple-port platform in terms of short-term outcomes when performed with expert surgeons. Single-port prostatectomies might provide a shorter hospital stay and a lower requirement for opioids; however, randomized trials with long-term follow-up are mandatory for valid comparisons.

Indexed as

laparoscopyprostate cancerradical prostatectomyrobotic prostatectomysingle port

Identifiers

PMID34945018
PMCPMC8703720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.