Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33747960›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Robotic Versus Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Breast Reconstruction.

Gilles Houvenaeghel, Julien Barrou, Camille Jauffret, Sandrine Rua, Laura Sabiani, Aurore Van Troy, Max Buttarelli, Guillaume Blache, Eric Lambaudie, Monique Cohen and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Gilles HouvenaeghelDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Julien BarrouDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Camille JauffretDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Sandrine RuaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Laura SabianiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Aurore Van TroyDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Max ButtarelliDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Guillaume BlacheDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Eric LambaudieDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Monique CohenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Paoli Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France.
Marie BannierCRCM, CNRS, INSERM, Aix Marseille Université, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral studies reported the feasibility and safety of robotic-NSM (R-NSM). The aim of our prospective study was to compare R-NSM and conventional-NSM (C-NSM).

methodsWe analyzed patients who were operated on with and without robotic assistance (R-NSM or C-NSM) and who received immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) with implant or latissimus dorsi-flap (LDF). The main objective was complication rate and secondary aims were post-operative length of hospitalization (POLH), duration of surgery, and cost.

resultsWe analyzed 87 R-NSM and 142 C-NSM with implant-IBR in 50 and 135 patients, with LDF-IBR in 37 and 7 patients, respectively. Higher durations of surgery and costs were observed for R-NSM, without a difference in POLH and interval time to adjuvant therapy between R-NSM and C-NSM. In the multivariate analysis, R-NSM was not associated with a higher breast complication rate (OR=0.608) and significant factors were breast cup-size, LDF combined with implant-IBR, tobacco and inversed-T incision. Grade 2-3 breast complications rate were 13% for R-NSM and 17.3% for C-NSM, significantly higher for LDF combined with implant-IBR, areolar/radial incisions and BMI>=30. A predictive score was calculated (AUC=0.754). In logistic regression, patient's satisfaction between C-NSM and R-NSM were not significantly different, with unfavorable results for BMI >=25 (OR=2.139), NSM for recurrence (OR=5.371) and primary breast cancer with radiotherapy (OR=4.533). A predictive score was calculated. In conclusion, our study confirms the comparable clinical outcome between C- NSM and R-NSM, in the price of longer surgery and higher cost for R-NSM. Predictive scores of breast complications and satisfaction were significantly associated with factors known in the pre-operative period.

Indexed as

breast cancerbreast reconstructionnipple sparing mastectomypredictive scorerobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID33747960
PMCPMC7971115

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.