ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025
Surgical and Oncologic Outcomes of Tumescence and Sharp Dissection Versus Electrocautery Dissection in Minimal-Access Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy with Immediate Prosthesis Breast Reconstruction: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Annals of surgical 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.
- The current status and hot topics of endoscopic techniques in breast cancer surgery: a global bibliometric and visualization analysis (1999-2024).Gland surgery · 2026Article
- Complications, patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and aesthetic outcomes of nipple-sparingTranslational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026Article
- ASO Author Reflections: Machine Learning for Postoperative Frailty Prediction in NSCLC-From Model Development to Clinical Translation.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Clinical study of vacuum-assisted excision of deep breast nodules via the retromammary space.Frontiers in surgery · 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
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMinimal-access nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction results in better cosmetic outcomes than conventional operation. However, the impact of skin flap development techniques on postoperative complications and long-term oncologic safety is largely unknown. This report describes the surgical and oncologic outcomes of tumescence and sharp dissection compared with electrocautery dissection.
methodsIn this real-world retrospective cohort study, 5436 individuals undergoing NSM from 12 centers in China were identified. After exclusions and propensity score-matching, the study included 1252 patients who underwent minimal-access NSM with immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction between January 2016 and December 2022. Perioperative parameters, postsurgical complications, and long-term survival were analyzed.
resultsOf the 1252 patients, 313 (25 %) underwent tumescence and sharp dissection, and 939 (75 %) underwent electrocautery dissection. The patients in the tumescence and sharp dissection group had significantly lower rates of necrotic complications (5.8 % vs 13.0 %; p = 0.001), infection (2.6 % vs 5.6 %; p = 0.041), and implant loss (0.3 % vs 2.2 %; p = 0.025) than those receiving electrocautery dissection, with a significantly shorter operation time (median, 177 min; interquartile range [IQR], 132-219 min vs 201 min; IQR, 143-249 min; p < 0.001). The two groups did not differ significantly in 5-year overall survival (p = 0.938) or disease-free survival (p = 0.893).
conclusionTumescence and sharp dissection was associated with fewer postoperative complications and a shorter operation time than electrocautery dissection for breast cancer patients receiving minimal-access NSM with immediate prosthesis breast reconstruction, and showed no significant difference in long-term survival.
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.