Comparison of Single-Port and Multiple-Port Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to collate and critically appraise the nascent body of evidence juxtaposing the da Vinci single-port (SP) system with its multiple-port (MP) antecedent, with the goal of ascertaining its surgical efficacy and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: The databases searched included PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Two independent reviewers conducted the initial screening for potential inclusion, assessed the quality of the studies via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and extracted relevant data. A third reviewer was responsible for reconciling the data. Random effects models were utilized. RESULTS: The final meta-analysis included eight studies, encompassing a cohort of 1389 patients, with 502 patients allocated to the SP group and 887 to the multiple-port group. We observed no significant differences in operative duration (WMD: 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): -7.44-7.67), blood loss (weighted mean difference (WMD): -11.50, 95% CI: -28.89-5.90), positive surgical margins (odds ratio (OR): 0.80, 95% CI: 0.59-1.08), complications (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.77-2.16), urinary continence (OR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.86-1.62), or erectile function (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.58-1.24) between the two procedural types. The meta-analysis revealed a mean difference of -0.86 days (95% CI: -1.64 to -0.08), suggesting a tendency toward shorter hospitalization for the SP group. CONCLUSIONS: The da Vinci SP system presents itself as a formidable contender when juxtaposed with its MP counterparts. Notwithstanding the encouraging preliminary data, a more substantial evidence base is needed to ascertain the definitive role of the SP system within the domain of urological surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".