Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42287517›Full record

SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026

Single‑port versus multi‑port robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched cohort studies.

Ruiyan Wang, Lin Zhang, Pengxin Liu, Deling Li, Shidong Deng, Huihui Zhang

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2026. 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.

Ruiyan WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China.
Lin ZhangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China.
Pengxin LiuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China.
Deling LiDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China.
Shidong DengDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China.
Huihui ZhangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, 421001, Hunan Province, People's Republic of China. jimmy.hui@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe effectiveness of single-port (SP) versus multi-port (MP) robotic-assisted partial nephrectomy (RAPN) has been compared in many studies, but the comparative superiority remains unclear. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively review the existing literature and conduct a more precise comparison of the two surgical methods.

methodsWe performed a thorough literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases to identify relevant studies published before April 2026. Eligible studies were strictly screened for inclusion in the subsequent meta-analysis, and their methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For continuous outcomes, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For dichotomous variables, the risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was applied.

resultsA total of six high-quality retrospective investigations were enrolled, involving 1223 patients in total. Of these, 591 (48%) patients underwent single-port surgery, while 632 (52%) patients underwent multi-port surgery. In terms of the surgical outcomes, primary analyses indicated that SP operation was similar to MP operation. SP and MP exhibited no statistically significant differences regarding positive surgical margins, postoperative complications, major postoperative complications, and ΔeGFR at 6 months. Compared with MP, SP has less-estimated blood loss and better pain control in the early postoperative period. Exploratory sensitivity analyses suggested potential advantages of SP in operative time and hospital stay. Subgroup analysis revealed a trend toward shorter warm ischemia time in the MP group compared with the SP group.

conclusionsSP is safe and comparable to MP in oncological, safety, and short-term renal function outcomes. Primary analyses showed no significant differences in operative time, hospital stay, or warm ischemia time. SP was associated with slightly lower estimated blood loss and early postoperative pain, but these differences were small and clinically minimal. Exploratory post hoc findings suggesting advantages in operative time and hospital stay require confirmation.

Indexed as

Kidney NeoplasmsNephrectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreKidney neoplasmsLaparoscopyMeta-analysisPartial nephrectomyPropensity score matching

Identifiers

PMID42287517

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.