Evidence Hub

Current status of single port robotic-assisted reconstructive urology: a systematic review, meta-analysis and structured summary of the available literature

Santarelli V, Valenzi FM, Haberal HB, Morgantini LA, Biasatti A, Aljoulani M, Carletti F, Turcan A et al.

Journal of robotic surgery, 2025

202 participants · 9 citations

Abstract

Single Port (SP) surgery is the most relevant surgical innovation of the past six years. Few data are available on the advantages and disadvantages of SP Robotic-Assisted reconstructive urology. In the present systematic review, we summarize the results of available literature exploring the feasibility of SP reconstructive urological procedures and comparing the SP and Multi Port (MP) approaches. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library Databases were systematically searched for articles evaluating outcomes of SP robotic-assisted pyeloplasty, ureteral reimplantation, Boari Flap, fistula repair, bladder diverticulectomy and vaginoplasty. After meticulous study selection, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare perioperative and postoperative outcomes of SP and MP robotic-assisted pyeloplasty (SP-RP and MP-RP). Regarding ureteric reimplantation, Boari Flap, bladder diverticulectomy, fistula repair and vaginoplasty, we underwent a structured narrative synthesis, since meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity or insufficient study numbers. The meta-analysis included a total of six retrospective cohort studies and 202 patients. SP-RP demonstrated significantly lower Estimated Blood Loss (EBL) (SMD - 0.45, 95%CI - 0.80 to - 0.09, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%) and better cosmetic results (MD 1.83, 95%CI 0.98-2.68, p 2 = 80%). There were no significant differences in terms of complication rates, operative times, success rate and renal function increase between the two approaches (p…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 202 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free