SynthesisBJS open2025
Oncological, surgical, and cosmetic outcomes of endoscopic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy: meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic Subcutaneous Mastectomy with Cold-Knife Flap Dissection Through a Single Axillary Incision for Gynaecomastia.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: current evidence, technical considerations, and clinical outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction and sentinel lymph node biopsy for early-stage breast cancer: a prospective case series.Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Oncological outcome of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional open mastectomy in early breast cancer: a multicenter cohort study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Minimal-access Nipple-sparing Mastectomy With Prepectoral Direct-to-implant Breast Reconstruction Without Acellular Dermal Matrix or Synthetic Mesh.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Single axillary incision for minimal access (endoscopic or robotic-assisted) nipple sparing mastectomy: axillary crease or lateral chest wall incision?Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Endoscope-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Implant Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Advanced techniques for mastopexy in patients with ptotic breasts requiring nipple-sparing mastectomy: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic and endoscopic minimally invasive breast surgery: a narrative synthesis on divergent global adoption and emerging trends.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Minimally Invasive Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Early Experience With Endoscopic and Robotic Techniques.European journal of breast health · 2026Article
- Clinical study of vacuum-assisted excision of deep breast nodules via the retromammary space.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Bridging Technology: Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy Using SOLOASSIST II® Robotic Arm.CRSLS : MIS case reports from SLSArticle
- Comment on: "Three Strategic Pillars for Implementing Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy".JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
- Three Strategic Pillars for Implementing Endoscopic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been developed to improve the cosmetic outcomes of conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. This meta-analysis compares surgical, quality of life and oncological outcomes of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy.
methodsPubMed and Embase were systematically reviewed to identify literature relevant to endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy literature published through to August 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and proportional and pairwise random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Surgical (operative time, duration of hospital stay, blood loss, necrosis, overall complications), quality of life (cosmesis, pain, nipple-areolar complex sensitivity) and oncological outcomes (margin positivity, recurrence, metastasis and breast cancer-specific mortality rate) were evaluated.
resultsOf 1286 articles retrieved, 51 endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy studies and 12 conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy reviews were analysed; 10 non-randomized comparative studies (656 patients) were included in the pairwise analysis and 36 studies (comparative and single-group cohort studies; 2612 patients) in the proportional meta-analysis. Results showed no differences in oncological outcomes (mean follow-up of up to 52 months), comparable overall (OR = 0.49; P = 0.100) and necrotic complications (OR = 0.45; P = 0.150), and improved cosmetic satisfaction (OR = 1.88; P = 0.020). Comparing only single-incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy to conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy significantly reduced postoperative necrosis (OR = 0.19; P = 0.008). The proportional meta-analysis produced oncological and surgical outcome rates comparable to or lower than conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy rates. However, longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 43.08 min; P < 0.00001) and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = 0.72 days; P = 0.0007) were observed.
conclusionEndoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy does not affect oncological outcomes in up to 52 months mean follow-up when compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy and provides better cosmetic satisfaction, with a reduced risk of necrosis after single-incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy. As such, endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy may become a viable breast surgery option.
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.