SynthesisBMC surgery2026
da Vinci
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 2026. 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.
- Adoption of single-port robot-assisted radical prostatectomy following multiport xi experience: lessons from a learning curve analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
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
backgroundThe adoption of the da Vinci
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261299189). We systematically searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to the final date of February 1, 2026. Eligible studies were comparative cohorts (prospective or retrospective, including propensity-matched designs) of adult patients with localized prostate cancer undergoing da Vinci
resultsFive comparative cohorts were included, comprising 968 patients who underwent SP-RARP and 668 patients who underwent Xi or multiport RARP. The positive surgical margin rates were not significantly different between the approaches (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75-1.09; I²=0%). Operative time was longer with SP (MD 10.39 min, 95% CI 0.72-20.07; I²=88%), whereas estimated blood loss (MD - 68.95 mL, 95% CI - 128.27 to - 9.63; I²=98%) and length of hospital stay (MD - 17.01 h, 95% CI - 24.12 to - 9.89 h; I²=91%) favored SP. Lymph node dissection rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.23; I²=99%), postoperative complications (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71-1.60; I²=0%), and urinary continence at ~ 3 months (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.87-1.71; I²=92%) were not significantly different between the two groups. Corridor-based subgrouping did not modify the PSM effects (p for subgroup differences = 0.51). The certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low, limited by non-randomized designs and inconsistencies for several recovery endpoints.
conclusionsBased on low-to very-low-certainty evidence from five nonrandomized cohorts, SP-RARP showed similar margin control and complication risk to Xi/multiport RARP, with a directional recovery signal favoring SP for blood loss and hospital stay; however, these estimates carried extreme heterogeneity (I²=98% and 91%) and should be regarded as exploratory. No strong platform-level recommendations can be made without prospective confirmatory evidence.
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.