ReviewCureus2023
Surgical Outcomes Following Robotic Single-Site Versus Multiport Hysterectomy for Treatment of Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reduced-port robotic surgery versus multiport robotic surgery in endometrial cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) has emerged as a novel surgical approach for the treatment of endometrial cancer and atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH). Current research regarding the benefits of RSSH compared to robotic multiport hysterectomy (RMPH) for these indications has been inconclusive. Our team sought to compare surgical outcomes between these two approaches of robotic hysterectomy via systematic review and meta-analysis to ensure optimal surgical practices. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist guided our review. MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane Library were searched, yielding 59 results. Articles were filtered by title and abstract and then reviewed in full for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria required that (1) studies compared outcomes for RSSH and RMPH, (2) hysterectomy was indicated for endometrial cancer or hyperplasia with atypia, and (3) studies were available in English. Excluded studies (1) compared single-site and multiport laparoscopic approaches, (2) compared robotic approaches to laparoscopic or abdominal (open) techniques, and (3) employed hysterectomy for benign conditions. Publication bias was assessed using the Egger Regression Correlation analysis. Four studies complied with the selection criteria, comprising 138 patients in the RSSH group and 259 in the RMPH group. Similar outcomes were noted across all measures, including conversion rate (relative risk [RR] = 1.84 and confidence interval [CI] = 0.99-3.43), blood loss (Cohen's
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.