SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Single-port versus multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for predominantly low-complexity renal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (SP-RAPN) is increasingly used for selected renal tumors, but its comparative value over multi-port robot-assisted partial nephrectomy (MP-RAPN) remains uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies, prioritizing propensity score-matched data when available. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched. Three studies involving 442 patients were included (210 SP-RAPN and 232 MP-RAPN). SP-RAPN was associated with lower estimated blood loss (MD = - 16.62 mL, 95% CI - 32.35 to - 0.89; P = 0.04; I² = 0%), although the absolute difference was small and unlikely to be clinically meaningful. No clear differences were detected in operative time, ischemia time, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, positive surgical margins, or pathological stage distribution. Ischemia-time estimates were difficult to interpret because of marked heterogeneity. Overall, the available evidence does not demonstrate a clear short-term advantage of either approach in predominantly low-complexity renal tumors. Given the small number of non-randomized cohorts and residual risk of bias, these findings should not be interpreted as evidence of equivalence or superiority. Larger prospective multicenter studies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42634038What 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.