ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Short-term outcomes of single-port versus multi-port robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSingle-port robotic surgery may reduce incision burden compared with multi-port robotic surgery. However, its feasibility for colorectal cancer surgery remains unclear, particularly with respect to short-term surgical outcomes and pathological findings.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we compared patients with clinical stage I-III colorectal adenocarcinoma who underwent single-port or multi-port robotic colorectal cancer surgery between January 2024 and December 2025. One-to-one propensity score matching was applied to balance baseline confounders. A sensitivity analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting was also performed to assess robustness.
resultsAfter matching, 104 patients per group were analyzed. Unadjusted operative time was shorter in the single-port group (median [interquartile range], 203 [165-277] vs. 223 [174-308] minutes; p = 0.042), although multivariable analysis showed no independent association between the platform and operative time. Estimated blood loss did not differ significantly (12 [6-18] vs. 10 [5-24] mL; p = 0.582). C-reactive protein levels on postoperative day (POD) 1 (2.50 [1.78-3.74] vs. 3.17 [1.68-4.95] mg/dL; p = 0.048) and visual analog scale pain scores at 24 h after surgery (8 [0-20] vs. 11 [3-20]; p = 0.038) were lower in the single-port group; however, CRP levels were comparable on POD3 (4.80 [2.64-6.97] vs. 4.97 [2.17-7.03] mg/dL; p = 0.887). The single-port group had fewer incisions and a shorter total incision length (4.7 [4.2-5.2] vs. 7.3 [7.3-8.3] cm; p < 0.001). Pathological findings were comparable, including lymph node yield (18 [11-27] vs. 17 [10-25]; p = 0.560) and radial margin positivity (1.0% vs. 3.8%; p = 0.369). Severe complications and length of stay were similar.
conclusionSingle-port robotic surgery was feasible and achieved perioperative safety comparable to multi-port robotic surgery. It was associated with reduced incision burden and favorable results in selected early postoperative recovery metrics, while showing comparable short-term pathological findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42642678What 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.