Transoral robotic surgery using the da Vinci single-port system: current evidence and clinical indications - a...

The DaVinci Single-Port (SP) transoral robotic surgery (TORS) platform was developed to overcome spatial constraints and instrument collisions encountered with multiport systems in head and neck surgery. We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed perioperative performance, safety, functional recovery, and oncologic outcomes of SP TORS. Following PRISMA 2020, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and the first 25 pages of Google Scholar through January 1, 2026. Peer-reviewed English-language clinical and cadaveric studies evaluating SP TORS were included. Three reviewers screened studies and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. Fourteen studies (2019-2025) including 479 patients met inclusion criteria. Patient-level evidence was concentrated in oncologic cohorts, with additional smaller clinical applications in obstructive sleep apnoea-related tongue-base surgery (37 patients), hypopharyngeal foreign body removal (1 patient), parapharyngeal space surgery (2 patients), and SP-assisted reconstruction (3 patients), as well as preclinical feasibility studies. No study reported intraoperative conversion to multiport or open surgery. Pooled estimates were console time 60.04 min (95% CI 29.56-90.51; I² = 99.1%), docking time 10.13 min (0.47-19.79; I² = 97.9%), operative time 57.72 min (37.23-78.21; I² = 0.0%), length of stay 10.63 days (2.43-18.82; I² = 99.8%), and blood loss 24.16 mL (- 6.95 to 55.27; I² = 86.8%). Bleeding was the most consistently reported surgical complication, with major bleeding requiring operative management reported in larger cohorts but remaining uncommon. Functional recovery suggested early oral intake, although timing was inconsistently reported. Margin status was predominantly R0 in several oncologic cohorts, although one matched cohort reported a lower R0 rate. SP TORS appears feasible across indications, but current evidence is limited by nonrandomized designs, inconsistent long-term reporting, and between-study heterogeneity.