ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
An Innovative and Highly Efficient Single-Port Endoscopic Nipple-/Skin-Sparing Mastectomy and Dual-Plane Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: A Prospective Study from a Single Institution.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07037537 (To Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic-assisted Nipple-areola-sparing Mastectomy Plus Pectoral Anterior Prosthesis Plus Mesh Immediate One-step Breast Reconstruction Plus Concurrent Autologous Fat Grafting), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 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.
To Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Laparoscopic-assisted Nipple-areola-sparing Mastectomy Plus Pectoral Anterior Prosthesis Plus Mesh Immediate One-step Breast Reconstruction Plus Concurrent Autologous Fat Grafting: a Prospective, Single-centre, Single-arm Study
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Oncological, surgical, and cosmetic outcomes of endoscopic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy: meta-analysis.BJS open · 2025Pooled it
- Minimal incision-assisted endoscopic versus conventional open breast-conserving surgery: A multicentre randomized clinical trial.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Trial
- Article
- Evaluating the impacts of previous breast surgery on surgical complications and aesthetic outcomes in reverse-sequence endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy with or without direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Reverse‑sequence endoscopic nipple‑sparing mastectomy with direct‑to‑implant breast reconstruction and air inflation adjustment technique in patients with large or severely ptotic breast: a single-center prospective cohort study.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes and aesthetic results of reverse sequence endoscopic versus traditional bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction-an analysis of initial 116 patients from single institution.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- [Past and present of endoscopic surgery and robotic surgery in treatment of breast diseases].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2024Review
- Safety and aesthetic outcomes of double purse-string suture nipple reconstruction in early breast cancer patients undergoing nipple resection and endoscopic skin-sparing mastectomy with breast reconstruction.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Short-term safety and cosmetic outcomes of endoscopic direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and simultaneous contralateral breast augmentation for breast cancer: a prospective analysis of 33 patients.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe difficulty in creating and maintaining a stable workspace of the breast makes endoscopic nipple-/skin-spring mastectomy (E-N/SSM) develop slowly. This study aims to report the preliminary results of a novel endoscopic technique for N/SSM followed by dual-plane direct-to-implant (DP-DTI) breast reconstruction.
methodsA prospectively maintained database was reviewed that included patients who underwent single-axillary-incision E-N/SSM and DP-DTI breast reconstruction from September 2020 to April 2021 at a single institution by three surgeons. The data were collected prospectively and analyzed to determine the efficacy, feasibility, safety, and esthetic results of the operation, as well as quality of life (QoL).
resultsDuring the study period, a total of 68 E-N/SSM and DP-DTI reconstruction procedures through a single axillary incision were performed in 63 female patients. Among all the procedures, the majority were performed for grade 1-3 ptotic breasts (n =46, 73.0%). During the median follow-up of 26.5 months, the major and minor surgical complication rates were 1.6% (1/63) and 9.5% (6/63), respectively. The cosmetic complication rate was 14.3%. One patient suffered local recurrence 4 months postoperation. The average scores in patient-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperation of satisfaction with breast (66.57), psychosocial well-being (75.93) and sexual well-being (56.29) were not significantly different compared with the baseline, except for physical well-being: chest (69.85).
conclusionsThe proposed procedure for E-N/SSM and DP-DTI breast reconstruction is feasible, time-saving and safe with good outcomes in terms of cosmetic results and QoL and expands the indications of DTI reconstruction to ptotic breasts, making it easier to popularize. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.