ArticleANZ journal of surgery2025
Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Breast-Conserving Surgery Performed Under Local and General Anesthesia.
Article in ANZ journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges and strategies for delivering effective breast cancer care in conflict zones.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of Surgical Outcomes of Breast-Conserving Surgery Performed Under Local and General Anesthesia.ANZ journal of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurgical resection remains the cornerstone of early breast cancer treatment. However, older patients with multiple co-morbidities may be unsuitable for general anesthesia (GA). The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated some surgeries under local anesthesia (LA), especially those without an option for anti-hormonal bridging therapy. This retrospective study compares the outcomes of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) under LA and GA.
methodsThirty-one consecutive patients under LA (April 2018-March 2022) were compared with 31 patients under GA. The primary outcomes included the length of hospital stay, postoperative complications within 1 month (including wound infections and seromas needing ≥ 3 aspirations), margin positivity, and re-operation rates. Statistical analysis was performed using R-4.2.2 with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsFive LA cases were performed 2 years before and 26 cases after the March 2020 UK lockdown. Between the LA and GA cohorts, there was no significant difference in median ages (LA: 73 years, IQR, 82.5-69 vs. GA: 72, IQR, 82-69; p = 0.760) and median tumor size (LA: 16.6 mm, IQR, 21.5-12.25 vs. GA: 23.1, IQR, 30.25-14; p = 0.081). Three LA patients underwent Sentinel node biopsy versus 28 GA. No LA patients underwent axillary node clearance versus one GA patient. Hospital stay was significantly shorter in LA versus GA (0 vs. 10, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications (LA: 5 vs. GA: 4, p = 1), positive resection margins (LA: 10 vs. GA: 18, p = 0.074) and re-operation rates (LA: 1 vs. GA: 5; p = 0.08).
conclusionsBCS under LA increased fivefold following the pandemic. Outcomes under LA were comparable to GA, providing a viable alternative approach for those unfit for GA, thus optimizing healthcare resources.
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.