ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024
The impact of single-port robotic surgery: a survey among urology residents and fellows in the United States.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Single-port robot-assisted pyeloplasty versus multiport pyeloplasty: evidence from controlled trials.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic partial nephrectomy is inching toward the gold standard for small renal masses-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Review
- The current landscape of single-port robotic surgery in urology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Selective by design: early adoption patterns of single-port off-clamp robotic partial nephrectomy in a high-volume center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Single-portAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Single-portAnnals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our aim was to investigate the perception and future expectations of Single-Port (SP) surgery among urology trainees in the United States. A 34-item online survey was distributed to urological residency and fellowship programs across the US, covering demographic profiles, SP training opportunities, perceived educational impact, and future perspectives. Descriptive analysis and multivariable linear regression were used to assess predictors of SP adoption. 201 surveys were completed (28.6% completion rate). Among institutions with an SP platform, about 50% have used it regularly for over 2 years, though often in less than 50% of procedures. While robotic simulators are commonly available, only 17% offer both multi-port and SP simulators, and structured pre-clinical SP training is limited. Approximately 30% of respondents expressed concerns over limited hands-on experience and a steeper learning curve with SP. Around 40% felt that their robotic surgery exposure was negatively impacted by SP's introduction. SP surgery's benefits are seen mostly in the immediate post-operative period and a significant number of respondents foresee a major role for SP in urology. However, proficiency in SP surgery is not seen as crucial for career advancement or job opportunities. Academic job aspirations, SP platform availability, and SP surgery workload are predictors of future SP implementation. Trainees increasingly recognize the clinical benefits of SP procedures but express concerns about the potential negative impact on hands-on experience. Training programs should more systematically integrate SP technology into curricula. There is a correlation between training in high-volume SP centers and future SP adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39402405What 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.