ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2023
Perioperative and oncologic outcomes of single-port versus conventional robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: an evidence-based analysis of comparative outcomes.
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robot-assisted pyeloplasty in ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO): a systematic comparison of single- and multiple-port techniques.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Perioperative and functional outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted radical cystectomy: evidence-based on controlled studies.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Single-port robotic surgery for kidney and upper tract cancer: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- The current landscape of single-port robotic surgery in urology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- First report of transumbilical robotic-assisted single-port laparoscopic partial nephrectomy using a domestic ShuruiTranslational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Selective by design: early adoption patterns of single-port off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy in a high-volume center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- DaVinci SP-based simultaneous bilateral partial nephrectomy from the midline transperitoneal approach: a case report.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2024Article
- Application of the single-port robotic platform during radical nephroureterectomy for upper tract urothelial carcinoma: feasibility of the single-port robot in the multi-quadrant setting.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- Safety and accuracy of cannulated pedicle screw placement in scoliosis surgery: a comparison of robotic-navigation, O-arm-based navigation, and freehand techniques.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2023Article
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
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety between single-port robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (da Vinci SP system) with conventional robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (da Vinci Si or Xi system). We systematically searched PubMed, Science Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library database for articles comparing single-port robotic-assisted partial nephrectomies (SP-RAPN) and conventional robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (Con-RAPN) till September 2022. The principal outcomes included perioperative outcomes, complications, and oncologic outcomes were evaluated. A total of 586 patients were included in six studies. There were no significant differences in operative time (p = 0.19), transfusion rates (p = 0.11), off-clamp (p = 0.32), total perioperative milligram morphine equivalents (MME) (p = 0.44), intraoperative complications (p = 0.60), major complications (p = 0.84), overall complications (p = 0.90), positive surgical margins (PSM) (p = 0.75) and local recurrence (p = 0.50) between SP-RAPN and Con-RAPN. In addition, the marginal results were recorded in length of hospital stay subgroup (WMD - 0.35 days, 95% CI - 0.70, 0.01; p = 0.06) and blood loss (WMD - 27.16 ml, 95% CI - 56.90, 2.58; p = 0.07). However, SP-RAPN had longer warm ischemia time compared to Con-RAPN (WMD 3.42 min, 95% CI 1.71, 5.13; p < 0.0001). The results of this study demonstrated that SP-RAPN provided similar effectiveness and safety to Con-RAPN, while SP-RAPN might be associated with a marginally shorter length of hospital stay and less blood loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36469187What 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.