ArticleCureus2024
Ultrasound-Guided Versus Wire-Guided Breast-Conserving Surgery for Non-palpable Breast Lesions: A Retrospective Review.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is standard for early breast cancer, yet achieving clear surgical margins remains challenging. Ultrasound (US)-guided BCS has emerged as a potential alternative to wire-guided surgery, but its efficacy compared to traditional methods requires evaluation. Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing BCS from April 2022 to April 2023 at the Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO-Porto) was conducted. Preoperative assessment by the surgeon determined the choice between ultrasound-guided and wire-guided surgery for non-palpable lesions. Results Out of 155 patients, 81 (52.3%) underwent US-guided BCS, while 74 (47.7%) underwent wire-guided BCS. Both groups had similar tumor characteristics and achieved rates of negative surgical margins (69 (92%) versus 53 (93%)). There was no significant difference in intraoperative re-excision rates between the two groups (24 (32%) versus 19 (33.3%); p=8.71). Additionally, the rate of repeat BCS/mastectomy after initial surgery was comparable (6 (8%) versus 4 (7%); p=1.000). Conclusions Ultrasound-guided BCS demonstrates comparable efficacy to wire-guided BCS for non-palpable breast lesions. Both techniques provide similar surgical outcomes, with the potential additional benefits of ultrasound-guided BCS for the patient and in the management of healthcare resources.
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.