Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40377824›Full record

SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2025

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a comparative analysis with conventional and endoscopic techniques through a systematic review.

Marta Maes-Carballo, Yolanda Gómez-Fandiño, Pedro Manuel Segovia Braña, Carmen Martínez-Martínez, Claudia Alberca-Remigio, Cristina Cámara-Martínez, Manuel García-García

Abstract readSystematic ReviewComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Marta Maes-CarballoDepartment of General Surgery, Hospital Público de Verín, Av. Laza s/n, 32600, Verín, Ourense, Spain. marta.maes.md@gmail.com.
Yolanda Gómez-FandiñoBreast Cancer Unit, Department of General Surgery, Hospital Lucus Augusti, Lugo, Spain.
Pedro Manuel Segovia BrañaDepartment of Surgery, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain.
Carmen Martínez-MartínezBreast Cancer Unit, Department of General Surgery, Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
Claudia Alberca-RemigioBreast Cancer Unit, Department of General Surgery, Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
Cristina Cámara-MartínezBreast Cancer Unit, Department of General Surgery, Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense, Ourense, Spain.
Manuel García-GarcíaDepartment of Surgery, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) has emerged as an innovative approach in breast cancer surgery, offering improved aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, its adoption remains controversial due to limited regulatory approval, higher costs, and the need for further comparative evidence. This systematic review aims to evaluate and compare conventional, endoscopic, and robotic NSM techniques to clarify their respective benefits, limitations, and outcomes. Following OSF registration (osf.io/6xt4s), a systematic review was conducted, identifying studies on nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) across multiple databases (January 2025). No language or data availability restrictions were applied. Study quality was assessed using the QualSyst criteria (range: 0.0-1.0). Twelve studies met inclusion criteria (ten observational, two clinical trials), with quality scores ranging from 0.75 to 0.95. R-NSM was associated with longer operative times (+ 25-60 min) and higher costs (+ $3,700-$5,000 per procedure). However, it demonstrated superior aesthetic outcomes, with concealed scars and higher patient satisfaction at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.03). Oncologic safety was comparable among NSM techniques, with no significant differences in recurrence, survival, or positive margin rates. While R-NSM initially resulted in prolonged hospital stays (+ 1.5-3 days), this effect diminished with surgical experience. In addition, R-NSM was linked to reduced intraoperative blood loss and a lower risk of severe postoperative complications, particularly nipple-areola complex necrosis. R-NSM offers promising benefits in selected patients, particularly regarding cosmetic outcomes and reduced complications. However, challenges remain, including high costs, longer surgical times, and the need for standardized protocols. Future research should focus on optimizing surgical techniques, refining patient selection, and conducting high-quality randomized controlled trials to establish its definitive role in breast cancer management.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEndoscopyMastectomyMastectomy, SubcutaneousNipplesOrgan Sparing TreatmentsRobotic Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansOperative TimePatient SatisfactionTreatment OutcomeBreast cancerBreast surgeryEsthetic outcomesMinimally invasive breast surgeryNipple-sparing mastectomyOncologic safetyRobotic surgery

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.