ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Evaluation of the clinical efficacy of mammotome minimally invasive rotary cutting surgery in the treatment of benign breast tumors: a comparative study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Zone-Specific, Minimally Invasive Approach with a Rotary Cutting System for Moderate-to-Severe Fibrotic Buffalo Hump.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- A reappraisal of research on minimally invasive treatment evaluation for benign breast tumors.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Clinical Efficacy of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Ablation and Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Benign Breast Tumors.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Benign breast tumors, while noncancerous, can cause significant distress and necessitate efficient treatment methods. Mammotome minimally invasive rotary cutting surgery has emerged as a potential alternative to traditional approaches, promising reduced invasiveness and improved outcomes. This retrospective study, conducted from January 2022 to December 2023 at Ezhou Central Hospital, involved a comparative analysis between two groups: the observation group, treated with Mammotome minimally invasive rotary cutting surgery, and the control group, treated with conventional surgical methods. Key parameters assessed included surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, incision healing time, hospital stay duration, postoperative complication rates, cosmetic outcomes, and changes in postoperative inflammatory and immune markers (TNF-α, hs-CRP, CD3 + , CD4 + /CD8 + ratios). Statistical significance was determined using appropriate tests, with p values less than 0.05 considered significant. The observation group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in terms of shorter surgical duration, reduced intraoperative blood loss, quicker incision healing, and shorter hospital stays compared to the control group (p < 0.05). In addition, the occurrence of postoperative complications was lower, and the rate of maintaining a good breast shape was higher in the observation group (p < 0.05). The observation group also showed lower levels of postoperative inflammatory markers (TNF-α, hs-CRP) and higher immune markers (CD3 + , CD4 + /CD8 + ratios) post-surgery (p < 0.05). Mammotome minimally invasive rotary cutting surgery is an effective and preferable method for the treatment of benign breast tumors, offering reduced surgical trauma, faster recovery, fewer complications, better cosmetic outcomes, and more favorable postoperative inflammatory and immune responses compared to traditional surgical methods. Despite the retrospective design, the findings suggest that Mammotome surgery may serve as a standard approach in benign breast tumor management, with further prospective research needed to validate these outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40335874What 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.