SynthesisBMC women's health2026
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of robotic single-site hysterectomy versus robotic multi-port hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRobotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) has emerged as an innovative minimally invasive approach for total hysterectomy, designed to minimize surgical trauma compared with the established robotic multi-port hysterectomy (RMPH). However, high-quality comparative evidence on their relative efficacy and safety is currently lacking. To address this uncertainty, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare perioperative outcomes between RSSH and RMPH.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed across eight electronic databases-including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, and CBM-from inception to July 2025, using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and free-text keywords. The primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative complication rates; secondary outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rates, postoperative hemoglobin decline, conversion to laparotomy, and length of hospital stay. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and statistical analyses were carried out with Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.4).
resultsFrom an initial yield of 881 records, seven retrospective cohort studies involving 962 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed that RSSH was associated with a significantly lower rate of intraoperative complications (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.66; p = 0.01), reduced estimated blood loss (MD = - 65.94 mL, 95% CI: -124.47 to - 7.40; p = 0.03), and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (SMD = - 0.28, 95% CI: -0.54 to - 0.01; p = 0.04) compared with RMPH, albeit with a significantly longer operative time (MD = 7.25 min, 95% CI: 2.18 to 12.32; p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two approaches in postoperative complication rates, conversion rates to laparotomy, blood transfusion requirements, or postoperative hemoglobin decline.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis of seven retrospective cohort studies demonstrated that robotic single-site hysterectomy (RSSH) was associated with significantly lower intraoperative complication rates, less estimated blood loss, and shorter postoperative hospital stay compared with robotic multi-port hysterectomy (RMPH), although RSSH required a remarkably longer operative time.
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.