Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36808041›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023

Outcomes of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gabriel De la Cruz-Ku, Diego Chambergo-Michilot, Armando Perez, Bryan Valcarcel, Larissa Pamen, David Linshaw, Abhishek Chatterjee, Jennifer LaFemina, Judy C Boughey

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 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. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Gabriel De la Cruz-KuDepartment of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA. gabrieldelacruzku@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4203-3890
Diego Chambergo-MichilotUniversidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Perú.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3904-7514
Armando PerezDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Bryan ValcarcelDepartment of Epidemiology, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Larissa PamenDepartment of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
David LinshawDepartment of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Abhishek ChatterjeeDivision of Surgical Oncology, Division of Plastic Surgery, Tufts Medical Center/Tufts School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Jennifer LaFeminaDepartment of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA.
Judy C BougheyDepartment of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3820-3228
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USMilken Institute · USTufts Medical Center · USUniversidad Científica del Sur · PE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The promising results of the robotic approach for multiple cancer operations has led to interest in the potential of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-NSM); however, further studies are required to compare the benefits and complications of this approach with those of conventional open nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM). We performed a meta-analysis to compare surgical complications of R-NSM versus C-NSM. We performed a review of literature through June 2022 in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohorts, case-control studies, and case series with > 50 patients comparing the two techniques. Separate meta-analyses were conducted according to study design. From 80 publications, we identified six studies. The sample size ranged from 63 to 311 mastectomies from 63 to 275 patients. The tumor size and disease stage were similar between groups. The positive margin rate was 0-4.6% in the R-NSM arm and 0-2.9% in the C-NSM arm. Four studies reported early recurrence data, which were similar between groups (R-NSM: 0%, C-NSM: 0-8%). The R-NSM group had a lower rate of overall complications compared to the C-NSM group in cohorts/RCTs (RR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.49-0.96). In case-control studies, rate of necrosis was lower with R-NSM. Operative time was significantly longer in the R-NSM group in cohort/RCTs. In early experience with R-NSM, R-NSM had a lower overall complication rate compared to C-NSM in cohorts/RCTs. While these data are promising, our results show variability and heterogeneity limiting definitive conclusions. Additional trials are needed to guide the role of R-NSM and its oncologic outcomes.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMastectomyNipplesRetrospective StudiesBreastBreast cancerMastectomyMeta-analysis (source: MeSH NLM)NippleSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36808041
OpenAlexW4321478668

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.