Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port versus multi-port robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparing the safety and efficacy of single-port (SP) versus multi-port (MP) robotic-assisted techniques in urological surgeries.

A systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA criteria for primary outcomes of interest, and quality assessment followed AMSTAR. Four databases were systematically searched: Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. The search time range is from database creation to December 2022. Stata16 was used for statistical analysis.

There were 17 studies involving 5015 patients. In urological surgeries, single-port robotics had shorter length of stay (WMD = − 0.63, 95% Cl [− 1.06, − 0.21], P < 0.05), less estimated blood loss (WMD = − 19.56, 95% Cl [− 32.21, − 6.91], P < 0.05), less lymph node yields (WMD = − 3.35, 95% Cl [− 5.16, − 1.55], P < 0.05), less postoperative opioid use (WMD = − 5.86, 95% Cl [− 8.83, − 2.88], P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in operative time, positive margins rate, overall complications rate, and major complications rate.

Single-port robotics appears to have similar perioperative outcomes to multi-port robotics in urological surgery. In radical prostatectomy, single-port robotics has shown some advantages, but the specific suitability of single-port robots for urological surgical types needs to be further explored.