Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2016
Does "Two is Better Than One" Apply to Surgeons? Comparing Single-Surgeon Versus Co-surgeon Bilateral Mastectomies.
Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two Surgeons Are Faster than One: A Comparative Study to Evaluate Efficiency and Outcomes in Reduction Mammaplasty.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Two Heads, One Wire: The Role of Dual Operators in Modern Interventional Radiology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Building an Interdisciplinary Clinic for Upper Extremity Reconstruction in Spinal Cord Injury: The Montreal TetraHand Experience.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Article
- Benefits and limitations of a dual faculty neurosurgeon approach to resection of pediatric craniopharyngioma.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024Article
- Patient-level costs of staged unilateral versus immediate bilateral symmetrization mammoplasty in breast-conserving surgery.BJS open · 2022Observational
- Dual surgeon operating to improve patient safety.The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery · 2021Review
- Third-time ("redo-redo") anti-reflux surgery: patient-reported outcomes after a thoracoabdominal approach.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Bilateral mastectomies: can a co-surgeon technique offer improvements over the single-surgeon method?Breast cancer research and treatment · 2018Article
- Does the number of operating specialists influence the conversion rate and outcomes after laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery?Surgical endoscopy · 2018Observational
- The Impact of the Cosurgeon Model on Bilateral Autologous Breast Reconstruction.Journal of reconstructive microsurgery · 2017Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBilateral mastectomies (BM) are traditionally performed by single surgeons (SS); a co-surgeon (CS) technique, where each surgeon concurrently performs a unilateral mastectomy, offers an alternative approach. We examined differences in general surgery time (GST), overall surgery time (OST), and patient complications for BM performed by CS and SS.
methodsPatients undergoing BM with tissue expander reconstruction (BMTR) between January 2010 and May 2014 at our center were identified through operative case logs. GST (incision to end of BM procedure), reconstruction duration (RST) (plastic surgery start to end of reconstruction) and OST (OST = GST + RST) was calculated. Patient age, presence/stage of cancer, breast weight, axillary procedure performed, and 30-day postoperative complications were extracted from medical records. Differences in GST and OST between CS and SS cases were assessed with a t test. A multivariate linear regression was fit to identify factors associated with GST.
resultsA total of 116 BMTR cases were performed [CS, n = 67 (57.8 %); SS, n = 49 (42.2 %)]. Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. GST and OST were significantly shorter for CS cases, 75.8 versus 116.8 min, p < .0001, and 255.2 versus 278.3 min, p = .005, respectively. Presence of a CS significantly reduces BMTR time (β = -38.82, p < .0001). Breast weight (β = 0.0093, p = .03) and axillary dissection (β = 28.69, p = .0003) also impacted GST.
conclusionsThe CS approach to BMTR reduced both GST and OST; however, the degree of time savings (35.1 and 8.3 %, respectively) was less than hypothesized. A larger study is warranted to better characterize time, cost, and outcomes of the CS-approach for BM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.