Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37890072›Full record

SynthesisThe British journal of surgery2024

Postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of robotic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: meta-analysis.

Ashrafun Nessa, Shafaque Shaikh, Mairi Fuller, Yazan A Masannat, Stavroula L Kastora

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The British journal of surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Minimal-access nipple-sparing mastectomy: current evidence, limitations, and future evaluation.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ashrafun NessaSchool of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8296-9760
Shafaque ShaikhSchool of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4536-9595
Mairi FullerBreast Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Yazan A MasannatSchool of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Stavroula L KastoraUCL EGA Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, with remarkable advances in early diagnosis, systemic treatments, and surgical techniques. Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been trialled; however, the complication rates, surgical outcomes, and oncological safety of this approach remain obscure.

methodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted from conception until September 2022. Studies examining complications and operative variables where robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy was compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy were included. Primary study outcomes were complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III complications, skin or nipple necrosis, seroma, haematoma, infection, implant loss, and wound dehiscence) and oncological safety (recurrence and positive margins). The secondary outcomes included operative variables, length of stay, cost-effectiveness, learning curve, and aesthetic outcome.

resultsA total of seven studies of overall fair quality, involving 1674 patients, were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Grade 3 complications were reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy without statistical significance (OR 0.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.35 to 1.05)). Nipple necrosis was significantly reduced in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (OR 0.54 (95 per cent c.i. 0.30 to 0.96); P = 0.03; I2 = 15 per cent). Operating time (mean difference +58.81 min (95 per cent c.i. +28.19 to +89.44 min); P = 0.0002) and length of stay (mean difference +1.23 days (95 per cent c.i. +0.64 to +1.81 days); P < 0.0001) were significantly increased in robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy, whereas the opposite was true for blood loss (mean difference -53.18 ml (95 per cent c.i. -71.78 to -34.58 ml); P < 0.0001).

conclusionWhilst still in its infancy, robotic breast surgery may become a viable option in breast surgery. Nonetheless, the oncological safety of this approach requires robust assessment.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMammaplastyRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansMastectomyNecrosisNipplesPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37890072
PMCPMC10769157
OpenAlexW4387969232

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.