ArticleCancer research and treatment2026
Comparative Study of Mastectomy Using Conventional Techniques, Multiport and Single-Port Robotic Surgical Systems.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Robotic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Feasibility and outcomes of single-incision robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: current evidence, technical considerations, and clinical outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy after periareolar incision: a surgical technical approach to subareolar dissection in a previously operated field.Gland surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOncologic and surgical outcomes of robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM) compared to conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM) is under investigation. This study compared the clinical outcomes of recurrence-free survival and postoperative complication after RNSM and CNSM. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed data of 401 patients who underwent da Vinci Si/Xi/SP-assisted RNSM or CNSM with immediate reconstruction between November 2016 and November 2020 at a single institute. Oncological outcomes were collected until March 2022. Primary endpoints were long-term outcomes, such as local recurrence, distant metastasis, disease-free survival, overall survival, and postoperative complications, while secondary endpoints were pathology results, and oncological outcomes.
resultsPatients underwent RNSM (n=162) or CNSM (n=239). Of RNSM cases, 9 (5.6%) were performed using the da Vinci Si System, 96 (59.3%) using the da Vinci Xi System, and 57 (35.2%) using the da Vinci SP System. No significant difference in recurrence-free survival was found between the RNSM and CNSM group, and both groups had a median follow-up of 37 months. The recurrence rate in RNSM patients after a median follow-up of 24.5 months was 3.8%, compared with 5.9% in CNSM patients after a median follow-up of 42 months. No difference in recurrence was seen among RNSM patients with respect to surgical systems (multiport vs. SP, p =0.136). In addition, grade III postoperative complication rate was lower in patients with RNSM than in those with CNSM. Transfusion was only applied in 6.2% of patients.
conclusionRobot-assisted surgical systems can be safely used to perform nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with early breast cancer.
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.