Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34868935›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Minimal Access (Endoscopic and Robotic) Breast Surgery in the Surgical Treatment of Early Breast Cancer-Trend and Clinical Outcome From a Single-Surgeon Experience Over 10 Years.

Hung-Wen Lai, Shou-Tung Chen, Ying-Jen Lin, Shih-Lung Lin, Ching-Min Lin, Dar-Ren Chen, Shou-Jen Kuo

Open access · goldAbstract 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 41 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hung-Wen LaiEndoscopic and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Center, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Shou-Tung ChenEndoscopic and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Center, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Ying-Jen LinTumor Center, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Shih-Lung LinDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Ching-Min LinDivision of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Dar-Ren ChenEndoscopic and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Center, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Shou-Jen KuoEndoscopic and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery Center, Department of Surgery, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan.
Changhua Christian Hospital · TWChang Gung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEndoscopic assisted breast surgery (EABS) or robotic assisted breast surgery (RABS) performed through minimal axillary and/or peri-areolar incisions has become the representative of minimal access breast surgery (MABS). We report the trend and clinical outcome of MABS for treatment of breast cancer.

methodsInformation on patients who underwent breast cancer operation by the principal investigator during the period of 2011 to 2020 was collected from a single institute for analysis. The clinical outcome, trend, and cost of MABS were analyzed and compared with conventional breast surgery (CBS).

resultsA total of 824 breast cancer patients operated by a single surgeon were enrolled in this study: 254 received CBS and 570 received MABS, namely, 476 EABS and 94 RABS. From 2011 to 2020, the number of MABS performed annually has shown an increasing trend. Compared with CBS, MABS such as breast conserving surgery and nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM) have effectively reduced wound scar length. Since the sequential uprise from conventional NSM (C-NSM), dual-axillary-areolar-incision two dimensional (2D) endoscopic assisted NSM (E-NSM), single-axillary-incision E-NSM, robotic assisted NSM (R-NSM), and single-port 3D E-NSM, the development of minimal access mastectomies increasingly paralleled with NSM. The operation time of various MABS decreased significantly and showed no statistical difference compared with CBS. R-NSM was associated with highest cost, followed by 3D E-NSM, E-NSM, and C-NSM. The positive surgical margin rate and local recurrence rate of MABS and CBS were not statistically different.

conclusionMABS showed comparable clinical outcome and preliminary oncologic safety as CBS and has been increasingly performed as the surgical treatment of breast cancer, especially minimal access NSM.

Indexed as

conventional breast surgery (CBS)endoscopic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (E-NSM)endoscopy-assisted breast conserving surgery (E-BCS)endoscopy-assisted breast surgery (EABS)robotic assisted nipple sparing mastectomy (R-NSM)single-port three-dimensional videoscope-assisted endoscopic nipple sparing mastectomy (3D E-NSM)

Identifiers

PMID34868935
PMCPMC8640170
OpenAlexW3216212035

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.