ArticleBJUI compass2024
A prospective study on single-port versus multiport patient-reported surgical outcomes.
Article in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Perioperative outcomes of the SHURUI single-port robotic system in urologic surgery: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Patient perspectives on single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted urologic oncology procedures: a survey-based analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Single port robotic hepatectomy: an initial European experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Single-port robot-assisted retroperitoneal partial nephrectomy: First European case series.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Initial clinical experiences of robotic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer using the Da Vinci™ SP system: a single-center retrospective study.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
- Single-Port Robotic Posterior Retroperitoneoscopic Adrenalectomy: Current Perspectives, Technical Considerations, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Dual robotic surgery: Da Vinci SPJournal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of outcomes between single-port and multi-port robotic radical nephrectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- A prospective study on single-port versus multiport patient-reported surgical outcomes.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Roundup.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
- Single-Port Robot assisted partial cystectomy for urachal adenocarcinoma.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: We sought to determine potential patient reported advantages of the da Vinci single-port (SP) robotic system for urological procedures compared with the previous model, the da Vinci multiport (MP) system. The SP model utilizes a single 30 to 40 mm incision rather than multiple 5 to 22 mm incisions. This project aims to prospectively investigate the impact of the novel SP system on patient reported cosmetic and psychometric surgical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a prospective study of patients who underwent uro-oncologic surgery by three urologists at the University of Illinois Chicago from April to November 2021. Study participants completed a Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire 20 and 90 days post-procedure. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire is a reliable measure of surgical scars that includes five subscales: Appearance, Symptoms, Consciousness, Satisfaction with Appearance, and Satisfaction with Symptoms. Higher scores represented worse reported outcomes. Results: On Postoperative Day 20, there were 77 responses (53 SP and 24 MP). Patients receiving SP procedures reported more favourable outcomes in terms of appearance, symptoms, consciousness, and pain medication. On Day 90, there were 37 responses (24 SP and 13 MP). Patients receiving SP procedures reported more favourable outcomes in terms of appearance. No significant differences were seen on Day 90 in terms of pain, medication, symptoms, consciousness, or satisfaction. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the superiority of the SP in patient reported cosmetic and pain outcomes on short- and long-term follow-up after uro-oncological surgical procedures. Symptomatic and cosmetic advantages are present at the 20 day follow-up, with better scar appearance being significant 90 days after surgery.
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.