Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35171405›Full record

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.

Yu Gui, Qingqiu Chen, Shichao Li, Xi Yang, Jing Liu, Xin Wu, Yilin Zhu, Linjun Fan, Jun Jiang, Li Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yu Gui *Breast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Qingqiu Chen *Breast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Shichao LiBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xi YangBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jing LiuBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Xin WuBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Yilin ZhuTabor Academy, Marion, USA.
Linjun FanBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Jun JiangBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Li ChenBreast Disease Center, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China. lichen20021522@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Breast reconstructionComplicationMinimally invasive NSM–PBRSurvival

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.