Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41428130›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025

Feasibility of aesthetic port placement in robot-assisted pyeloplasty a single institute study in all age groups.

Kimihiro Shimatani, Akihiro Kanematsu, Koichi Oshima, Toeki Yanagi, Ryoichi Saito, Shingo Yamamoto

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kimihiro ShimataniDepartment of Urology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, 1-1 Mukogawacho, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Akihiro KanematsuDepartment of Urology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, 1-1 Mukogawacho, Nishinomiya, Japan. aqui@hyo-med.ac.jp.
Koichi OshimaDepartment of Urology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, 1-1 Mukogawacho, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Toeki YanagiDepartment of Urology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, 1-1 Mukogawacho, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Ryoichi SaitoDepartment of Urology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, 1-1 Mukogawacho, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Shingo YamamotoDepartment of Urology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, 1-1 Mukogawacho, Nishinomiya, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to identify patient factors associated with aesthetic port placement in robot-assisted pyeloplasty (RAPP) at a single institute treating all age groups. Patients who underwent multiport da Vinci RAPP between 2015 and 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Port placement was determined based on the location of the ureteropelvic junction. The non-visible port position was defined as that placed in the umbilicus or below the bikini line. Demographic data were compared between the aesthetic (zero or only one visible port scar) and non-aesthetic (two or more visible port scars) port placement groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and multivariable logistic regression were performed to assess the determinants of aesthetic placement. Forty-five patients were included (18 males and 27 females; age: 2–69, median 23 years). Sixteen of the 17 patients (94%) aged ≤ 15 years and 14/28 (50%) aged > 15 years achieved aesthetic port placement. Compared with the non-aesthetic port placement group, the aesthetic port placement group was significantly younger, shorter, and had a lower body mass index (all p < 0.05). Independent determinant for aesthetic port placement was body mass index (OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.18–0.66, p = 0.004) and age (OR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.86–0.98, p = 0.025). ROC analysis identified body mass index as the strongest predictor (area under the curve = 0.931, cutoff = 20.6). These findings provide a basis for preoperative port planning and instructions for patients who are concerned for wound cosmesis.

Indexed as

Kidney PelvisRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologic Surgical ProceduresAdolescentAdultAgedAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolEstheticsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesAll age groupsPatient factorPort scarRobot assisted pyeloplasty

Identifiers

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.