Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38197961›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Si Ge, Zhiqiang Zeng, Yunxiang Li, Lijian Gan, Chunyang Meng, Kangsen Li, Zuoping Wang, Lei Zheng

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. da VinciBMC surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Si Ge *Department of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, 63700, Sichuan, China.
Zhiqiang Zeng *Department of UrologySchool of Clinical Medicine, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, China.
Yunxiang LiDepartment of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, 63700, Sichuan, China. liyunxiang369@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2753-6676
Lijian GanDepartment of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, 63700, Sichuan, China.
Chunyang MengDepartment of UrologySchool of Clinical Medicine, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000, Sichuan, China.
Kangsen LiDepartment of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, 63700, Sichuan, China.
Zuoping WangDepartment of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, 63700, Sichuan, China.
Lei ZhengDepartment of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University), Nanchong, 63700, Sichuan, China.

Funding

the Sichuan Province Science and Technology Planning Project 2020YFS0320
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveComparing the safety and efficacy of single-port (SP) versus multi-port (MP) robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries.

methodsA systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA criteria for primary outcomes of interest, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. Four databases were systematically searched: Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The search time range is from database creation to December 2022. Stata16 was used for statistical analysis.

resultsThere were 17 studies involving 5015 patients. In urological surgeries, single-port robotics had shorter length of stay (WMD = - 0.63, 95% Cl [- 1.06, - 0.21], P < 0.05), less estimated blood loss (WMD = - 19.56, 95% Cl [- 32.21, - 6.91], P < 0.05), less lymph node yields (WMD = - 3.35, 95% Cl [- 5.16, - 1.55], P < 0.05), less postoperative opioid use (WMD = - 5.86, 95% Cl [- 8.83, - 2.88], P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, positive margins rate, overall complications rate, and major complications rate.

conclusionSingle-port robotics appears to have similar perioperative outcomes to multi-port robotics in urological surgery. In radical prostatectomy, single-port robotics has shown some advantages, but the specific suitability of single-port robots for urological surgical types needs to be further explored.

Indexed as

ProstatectomyUrologic Surgical ProceduresDatabases, FactualHumansLymph NodesMaleOperative TimeMulti-portRobotic-assistedSingle-portUrological surgery

Identifiers

PMID38197961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.