ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
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.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robotic and endoscopic minimally invasive breast surgery: a narrative synthesis on divergent global adoption and emerging trends.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- The current status and hot topics of endoscopic techniques in breast cancer surgery: a global bibliometric and visualization analysis (1999-2024).Gland surgery · 2026Article
- When body image and fear collide: a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative (fsQCA) and mediation analysis of sufficient pathways to post-traumatic stress in breast cancer survivors.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Long-term oncologic outcomes of minimal access (endoscopic or Robotic Assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy compared with conventional approach in breast cancer - a propensity score matching analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic or robotic surgeries can minimize and hide the scars compared to conventional breast reconstruction but are considered unsuitable for bilateral procedures due to the extended operation time. This study explored a novel time-shortening endoscopic technique, namely reverse-sequence endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-E-NSM) with bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction (BIBR), and compared it with conventional open surgery in clinical and cosmetic outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent BIBR in the West China Hospital from January 2017 to June 2022. Patient characteristics, operation time, postoperative complications, breast satisfaction, and Scar-Q scores were compared between endoscopic and conventional open groups. Results: Among 116 patients, 76 underwent R-E-NSM with BIBRs (R-E-BIBR group), and 40 underwent conventional open BIBRs (C-O-BIBR group). The demographics and clinical data were similar primarily (P > 0.05). Compared with the C-O-BIBR group, the R-E-BIBR group had lower rates of total (32.5% versus 6.6%, P < 0.001), major (13.8% versus 2.0%, P < 0.001) and minor (23.8% versus 3.9%, P < 0.001) complications. The operation time between the two groups is not statistically significant (290.2 ± 95.2 mins versus 271.9 ± 95.3 mins, P = 0.327). The Harris scale scored breast satisfaction, and the excellent rate of the C-O-BIBR group was 32.5% while the R-E-BIBR group was 58.0% (P < 0.001). The mean Scar-Q scores were 35.17± 9.6 in the C-O-BIBR group and 81.32 ± 12.3 in the R-E-BIBR group, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The innovative R-E-NSM with implant-based breast reconstruction makes up for the long operation time of previous endoscopic surgeries and has significant advantages in reducing complication rates and improving the cosmetic results of the postoperative breasts. Level of Evidence: Level III, Retrospective study.
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.