Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34128142›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2022

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy complication rate compared to traditional nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

M D Filipe, E de Bock, E L Postma, O W Bastian, P P A Schellekens, M R Vriens, A J Witkamp, M C Richir

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Minimal-access nipple-sparing mastectomy: current evidence, limitations, and future evaluation.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Endoscopic Anatomy of the Breast Fascia System: Peripheral-to-Central Approach.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025
    Article
  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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M D FilipeDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands. m.d.filipe@umcutrecht.nl.
E de BockDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E L PostmaDepartment of Surgery, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
O W BastianDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P P A SchellekensDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M R VriensDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A J WitkampDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M C RichirDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Centre, University Medical Centre Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is worldwide the most common cause of cancer in women and causes the second most common cancer-related death. Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) is commonly used in therapeutic and prophylactic settings. Furthermore, (preventive) mastectomies are, besides complications, also associated with psychological and cosmetic consequences. Robotic NSM (RNSM) allows for better visualization of the planes and reducing the invasiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the postoperative complication rate of RNSM to NSM. A systematic search was performed on all (R)NSM articles. The primary outcome was determining the overall postoperative complication rate of traditional NSM and RNSM. Secondary outcomes were comparing the specific postoperative complication rates: implant loss, hematoma, (flap)necrosis, infection, and seroma. Forty-nine studies containing 13,886 cases of (R)NSM were included. No statistically significant differences were found regarding postoperative complications (RNSM 3.9%, NSM 7.0%, p = 0.070), postoperative implant loss (RNSM 4.1%, NSM 3.2%, p = 0.523), hematomas (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.059), necrosis (RNSM 4.3%, NSM 7.4%, p = 0.230), infection (RNSM 8.3%, NSM 4.0%, p = 0.054) or seromas (RNSM 3.0%, NSM 2.0%, p = 0.421). Overall, there are no statistically significant differences in complication rates between NSM and RNSM.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMastectomyNipplesRetrospective StudiesMinimally invassiveRobot assisted nipple sparing mastectomySurgery

Identifiers

PMID34128142
PMCPMC8960562
OpenAlexW3171625032

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.