Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40655393›Full record

ReviewCurrent breast cancer reports2025

A Brief History and the Current State of Robotic Mastectomy: a Review.

Nicole Rademacher, Lauren A Curwick, Catherine C Parker

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current breast cancer reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

3 authors.

Nicole RademacherDepartment of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA.
Lauren A CurwickDepartment of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA.
Catherine C ParkerDepartment of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS T32 HS013852
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose of Review: To evaluate and describe the current indications, implementation, operative techniques, and patient outcomes for robotic nipple sparing mastectomy (RNSM). Recent Findings: The robotic approach to nipple-sparing mastectomies (NSM) has been shown to be feasible. The learning curve required by surgical teams can be overcome, but barriers to implementation exist, including higher cost and longer operative time compared to conventional nipple sparing mastectomies (CNSM). When performed, RNSM have been found to confer greater patient satisfaction and similar if not improved perioperative outcomes. However, the most critical current concern is the lack of long-term oncologic outcomes. The current available literature suggests short-term oncologic outcomes are not significantly different between RNSM and CNSM. Summary: Randomized control trials with longer follow up are needed to determine the oncologic safety of RNSM and drive the future direction of this procedure.

Indexed as

Breast cancerBreast surgeryMinimally invasive surgeryNipple sparing mastectomyRobotic mastectomy

Identifiers

PMID40655393
PMCPMC12254071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.