ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2025
Advantages of robotic single-port hysterectomy compared to robotic multiport hysterectomy on clinical and aesthetic outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer.
Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Robotic multiport (RMP) and single-site (RSS) hysterectomies are minimally invasive surgical techniques increasingly employed in the treatment of endometrial cancer. This study assesses whether RSS provides distinct therapeutic and aesthetic benefits compared to RMP, such as fewer and smaller incisions, which enhance cosmetic satisfaction and expedite postoperative recovery. A retrospective analysis of comparative research on RSS and RMP in endometrial cancer was performed utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar. Only publications in the English language from 2019 to 2025 were included. Studies were chosen based on their assessment of clinical results (e.g., operation duration, complications, hemorrhage, recovery time) and cosmetic outcomes (e.g., scar visibility, incision attributes, patient satisfaction). RSS correlated with reduced hospital durations, diminished postoperative discomfort, expedited recovery, and enhanced cosmetic outcomes attributable to fewer and smaller incisions. Both approaches exhibited similar safety profiles regarding blood loss, complication rates, and lymph node evaluation. RSS was associated with increased patient-reported satisfaction and enhanced postoperative physical performance. Nevertheless, characteristics such as BMI, comorbidities, and surgeon experience were evaluated inconsistently across trials, underscoring the lack of standardized reporting and the necessity for rigorously controlled research assessing these factors. RSS demonstrates enhanced aesthetic results and comparable clinical safety relative to RMP, rendering it a preferable choice for patients who prioritize recovery and cosmetic appearance. These findings can also guide tailored surgical planning and improve patient counseling in gynecologic oncology. Future randomized trials with a wider patient demographic and extended follow-up are crucial to validate these findings and evaluate their oncological longevity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40760342What 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.