ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Feasibility of aesthetic port placement in robot-assisted pyeloplasty a single institute study in all age groups.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
41428130What 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.