ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Patient perspectives on single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted urologic oncology procedures: a survey-based analysis.
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. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The da Vinci single-port (SP) system enables robotic urologic surgery through a single incision, unlike the conventional multiport (MP) approach. Although SP surgery may reduce postoperative pain and improve cosmesis, its adoption remains limited by a steep learning curve, high costs, and limited long-term oncologic data. This study evaluated patient perspectives on SP versus MP robotic-assisted urologic surgery, focusing on the relative importance of surgical and cosmetic outcomes. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 51 adults scheduled for robotic-assisted genitourinary oncologic procedures in a single surgeon's practice between 2024 and 2025. Participants completed a Likert-scale questionnaire assessing cosmetic outcomes, cancer control, postoperative pain, complication risk, cost, and marketing influence, and ranked five surgical factors by importance. Statistical analyses included Friedman rank testing, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Of 58 eligible patients approached, 51 completed the survey. Cancer control was ranked as the most important factor (mean rank 1.47 ± 0.81, p < 0.001), followed by complication risk and postoperative pain. Cost and cosmetic appearance were ranked least important. Cosmetic prioritization did not differ significantly across age, sex, or diagnosis groups. Male patients placed greater importance on cancer control than female patients (p = 0.002). Among men, those without prostate cancer placed greater importance on postoperative pain than those with prostate cancer (p = 0.006). Patients undergoing robotic genitourinary oncologic surgery prioritize cancer control, complication risk, and postoperative pain over cost and cosmetic outcomes when choosing between SP and MP robotic platforms.
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.