ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: an improvement of conventional minimal access breast surgery.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic-assisted versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Minimal-access Nipple-sparing Mastectomy With Prepectoral Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction Without Acellular Dermal Matrix or Synthetic Mesh.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Endoscope-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Implant Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic and endoscopic minimally invasive breast surgery: a narrative synthesis on divergent global adoption and emerging trends.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- The current status and hot topics of endoscopic techniques in breast cancer surgery: a global bibliometric and visualization analysis (1999-2024).Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Global research trends in endoscopic breast surgery: a bibliometric analysis from 1994 to 2024.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- 7-step endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based breast reconstruction: nipple sensation preservation and low complications.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Article
- The Learning Curve of Reverse-Sequence Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Prepectoral Implant Reconstruction: CUSUM Analysis.Breast cancer (Dove Medical Press) · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Our center proposes a new technique that effectively provides space to broaden the surgical field of view and overcomes the limitations of endoscopy-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (E-NSM) by changing the dissection sequence and combining it with air inflation. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the new technique designated "reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with subpectoral breast reconstruction (SBR)" and the conventional E-NSM (C-E-NSM) with SBR. Method: All patients undergoing E-NSM with SBR at our breast center between April 2017 and December 2022 were included in this study. The cohort was divided into the C-E-NSM group and the R-E-NSM group. The operation time, anesthesia time, medical cost, complications, cosmetic outcomes, and oncological safety were compared. Results: Twenty-six and seventy-nine consecutive patients were included in the C-E-NSM and R-E-NSM groups, with average ages of 36.9 ± 7.0 years and 39.7 ± 8.4 years (P=0.128). Patients in the R-E-NSM group had significantly shorter operation time (204.6 ± 59.2 vs. 318.9 ± 75.5 minutes, p<0.001) and anesthesia time (279.4 ± 83.9 vs. 408.9 ± 87.4 minutes, p<0.001) and decreased medical costs [5063.4 (4439.6-6532.3) vs. 6404.2 (5152.5-7981.5), USD, p=0.001] and increase SCAR-Q scores (77.2 ± 17.1 vs. 68.8 ± 8.7, P=0.002) compared to the C-E-NSM group. Although trends increased in both the excellent rate of Ueda scores (53.8% vs. 42.3%, P = 0.144), excellent rate of Harris scores (44.0% vs. 63.1%, P=0.102), and decreased surgical complications (7.6% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.135) were observed in the R-E-NSM group, the differences were not significant. There were no significant differences in oncological outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion: R-E-NSM improves cosmetic outcomes and efficiency of C-E-NSM, reduces medical costs, and has a trend of lower surgical complications while maintaining the safety of oncology. It is a safe and feasible option for oncological procedures that deserves to be promoted and widely adopted in practice.
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.