ReviewCancers2026
A Narrative Review of da Vinci Single-Port Versus Multi-Port Robotic Surgery in Elderly or Frail Urological Cancer Patients.
Review in Cancers, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElderly and frail patients undergoing surgery for urological cancer have increased vulnerability to postoperative complications, delayed recovery, and functional decline. The da Vinci Single-Port (SP) platform may reduce surgical stress by enabling regionalized extraperitoneal, retroperitoneal, or transvesical access through a single incision.
objectiveThe objective was to provide a narrative review of the comparative evidence on da Vinci SP versus conventional multi-port (MP) robotic surgery in elderly or frail urological cancer patients.
methodsA structured search was performed to identify comparative studies reporting outcomes in patients defined as elderly by chronological age (≥65 years) or as frail by a validated frailty index. Findings are reported separately according to the vulnerability construct that was actually measured. Because of procedural and methodological heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was performed, and the risk of bias was appraised qualitatively along the domains of the ROBINS-I tool.
resultsOnly three retrospective comparative studies are currently available: two on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (one in patients aged ≥65 years and one in patients stratified by the 5-item modified frailty index) and one on robot-assisted partial nephrectomy in patients aged ≥65 years. Across these studies, SP surgery was associated with fewer early postoperative complications, shorter length of stay, and more favourable recovery-related endpoints, and in the frailty-stratified study the apparent protective effect increased with frailty burden. All estimates are those published by the original authors, are reported descriptively, and were not pooled. Importantly, in none of the three studies was the SP platform compared with MP surgery performed through the same access route: SP procedures were predominantly extraperitoneal or retroperitoneal and MP procedures were predominantly transperitoneal, so the effect of the platform cannot be separated from that of the access route.
conclusionsThe available data are compatible with a reduction in early perioperative morbidity after SP robotic surgery in selected elderly or frail urological cancer patients, particularly when the platform enables extraperitoneal or retroperitoneal access. Because this evidence rests on three retrospective studies at serious risk of bias, the findings are preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory. Prospective studies incorporating geriatric screening, validated frailty metrics, patient-reported recovery, cost-effectiveness, and long-term oncological outcomes are needed.
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.