ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
Implementation of single-port robotic urologic surgery: experience at a large academic center.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative short-term efficacy and safety analysis of a single-port robot in nephrectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Single-port robot-assisted pyeloplasty versus multiport pyeloplasty: evidence from controlled trials.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Single-port robotic surgery for kidney and upper tract cancer: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- Global research trends and hotspots in single-port robotic surgery in urology: a bibliometric analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- The current landscape of single-port robotic surgery in urology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Article
- The impact of single-port robotic surgery: a survey among urology residents and fellows in the United States.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Pelvic Lymph Node Dissection: A Comparison Among Extraperitoneal Single-port and Transperitoneal Multiport Radical Prostatectomy-A Single-center Experience.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Single-Port Robot-Assisted Post-Chemotherapy Unilateral Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection: Feasibility and Surgical ConsiderationsInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Iatrogenic Ureteropelvic Junction Disruption from Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery: Early Repair using The SP Robotic System.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- The atlas of supine single port extraperitoneal access.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- Single Port Robotic Extraperitoneal Distal Ureterectomy and Ureteral Reimplantation via Lower Anterior Approach.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Single-Port (SP) robotic system is increasingly being implemented in the United States, allowing for several minimally invasive urologic procedures to be performed. The present study aims to describe our single-center experience since the adoption of the SP platform. We retrospectively collected and analyzed consecutive SP cases performed at a major teaching hospital in the Midwest (Rush University Medical Center) from December 2020 to December 2023. Demographic variables were collected. Surgical and pathological outcomes were analyzed in the overall cohort and for each type of procedure. The study timeframe was divided into two periods to assess the evolution of SP technical features over time. In total, 160 procedures were performed, with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) being the most common (49.4%). Overall, 54.4% of the procedures were extraperitoneal, with a significantly higher adoption of this approach in the second half of the study period (30% vs 74.3%, p < 0.001). A "plus one" assistant port was adopted in 38.1% of cases, with a shift towards a "pure" single-port surgery in the most recent procedures (21.1% vs 76.7%, p < 0.001). The median LOS was 33.5 h (30-48), with a rate of any grade and CD ≥ 3 postoperative complications of 9.4% and 2.5%, respectively, and a 30-day readmission rate of 1.9%. SP robotic surgery can be safely and effectively implemented for various urologic procedures. With increasing experience, the SP platform allows shifting away from transperitoneal procedures, potentially minimizing postoperative pain, and shortening hospital stay and postoperative recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38492003What 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.