SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Single-port vs. multi-port robotic radical prostatectomy: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.
Synthesis 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-port robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (SP-RARP) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional multi-port RARP (MP-RARP), aiming to reduce surgical access morbidity while maintaining oncological and functional outcomes. We performed an umbrella review to synthesize and critically appraise the available meta-analytic evidence comparing SP-RARP and MP-RARP. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was conducted from inception to December 2025. Meta-analyses comparing SP-RARP with MP-RARP in adults undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Outcomes evaluated included perioperative, functional, oncological, cosmetic, and economic parameters. Due to overlap of primary studies and methodological heterogeneity, findings were synthesized descriptively. Eight meta-analyses were included. Across pooled evidence, SP-RARP demonstrated significantly shorter hospital stay, smaller incision length, reduced postoperative pain, lower opioid requirements, and greater feasibility for ambulatory or same-day discharge pathways. Operative time, console time, estimated blood loss, and overall complication rates were generally comparable between approaches. Functional outcomes, including urinary continence and potency recovery, showed no significant differences. Similarly, oncological outcomes such as positive surgical margin rates and biochemical recurrence were equivalent. Current evidence suggests that SP-RARP is a safe and feasible alternative to MP-RARP, offering improved recovery and cosmetic outcomes without compromising oncological or functional results. However, the certainty of evidence remains limited by methodological weaknesses and predominantly retrospective data. High-quality prospective multicenter studies with long-term follow-up are needed to define the role of SP-RARP in contemporary prostate cancer surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42579231What 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.