ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2022
Safety and Feasibility of Minimally Invasive (Laparoscopic/Robotic-Assisted) Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Combined with Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction in Breast Cancer: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Oncological, surgical, and cosmetic outcomes of endoscopic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy after periareolar incision: a surgical technical approach to subareolar dissection in a previously operated field.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Oncological outcome of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional open mastectomy in early breast cancer: a multicenter cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Surgical technique of articulated instruments in endoscopic (ARTISTIC) mastectomy: bridging the gap in minimally invasive breast surgery.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Long-term oncologic outcomes of minimal access (endoscopic or Robotic Assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy compared with conventional approach in breast cancer - a propensity score matching analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Surgical Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery Compared to Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews.Journal of breast cancer · 2025Article
- Laparoscopy in the Surgical Management of Gynecological Cancer: A Comprehensive Update.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Mastectomy: A Cost-Effective and Time-Efficient Alternative to Robotic Mastectomy With Comparable Oncologic and Safety Outcomes.Journal of breast cancer · 2025Article
- 7-step endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based breast reconstruction: nipple sensation preservation and low complications.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A challenging surgical technique: single-port endoscopic-assisted radical mastectomy in retrograde way and immediate reconstruction using prosthesis implantation.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery research in breast cancer conducted between 2008 and 2022.Gland surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy combined with prosthesis breast reconstruction (NSM-PBR) is associated with smaller scars and greater patient satisfaction. However, the oncological safety of minimally invasive NSM-PBR remains controversial. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study of patients with breast cancer who underwent breast reconstruction between 1 January 2006 and 20 February 2021. Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics, operation information, postoperative complications, and survival outcomes were analyzed.
resultsIn all, 292 patients underwent minimally invasive NSM-PBR and 205 underwent open NSM-PBR for breast cancer. In the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group, 268 (91.8%) patients underwent laparoscopy and 24 (8.2%) patients underwent robot-assisted NSM-PBR. Mean operation time in the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group was significantly longer than that in the open NSM-PBR group (P = 0.023). Mean intraoperative blood loss was significantly less in the minimally invasive NSM-PBR group (P < 0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in total complications. Similarly, there were no significant between-group differences in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, and local recurrence rate (P = 0.450, P = 0.613, and P = 0.679, respectively).
conclusionsThe complication, recurrence, and mortality rates in minimally invasive NSM-PBR group were comparable to those in open NSM-PBR group. Our preliminary results are encouraging and suggest that minimally invasive NSM-PBR affords good cosmetic results and its oncological safety is comparable to that of open surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35171405What 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.