ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Single-port robotic colorectal surgery: a scoping review of outcome reporting and future directions for standardisation.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reduced-Port Laparoscopic Colectomy for Colorectal Cancer: The Comparison That Matters Now Is With Reduced-Access Robotic Surgery.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-port (SP) robotic-assisted surgery is the latest development in minimally invasive colorectal surgery and may offer advantages such as improved cosmesis, reduced pain, and shorter hospital stay. However, evidence remains fragmented, and inconsistent outcome reporting limits comparison across studies and meaningful meta-analysis. This scoping review evaluated outcome reporting in SP robotic colorectal surgery to identify gaps and inform standardisation.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2026. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of SP transabdominal robotic colorectal surgery or comparing SP with multi-port (MP) approaches were included. Data extraction assessed reporting completeness across patient demographics, operative details, intraoperative outcomes, postoperative recovery, and long-term follow-up.
resultsNineteen studies met inclusion criteria, comprising 992 patients, of whom 610 underwent SP robotic resection. Eight studies were comparative and eleven non-comparative. Most were single-centre retrospective series from high-volume centres in the United States and South Korea. Outcome reporting was highly heterogeneous. Operating time, complications, and conversion rates were most consistently reported. In contrast, postoperative and patient-centred outcomes were inconsistently captured, including pain scores (4/19 studies), return to theatre (2/19), and follow-up interval (5/19). All studies reported complications, but only 9/19 used standardised grading systems. No study assessed health economic outcomes or cost-effectiveness.
conclusionOutcome reporting in SP robotic colorectal surgery remains inconsistent and focused mainly on technical feasibility. Standardised core outcome sets are needed to support robust comparison, pooled analysis, and evidence-based adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.