ArticleCureus2025
A Single-Center Prospective Evaluation of Oncoplastic Crescent Incision in the Surgical Management of Large and Multiple Benign Breast Lesions.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Benign breast diseases constitute a significant proportion of breast pathologies, often requiring surgical excision. Excision of large or multiple lesions by conventional approaches may compromise cosmetic outcomes, especially for peripheral lesions. Oncoplastic techniques offer a way to achieve complete excision while preserving breast aesthetics. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction associated with the oncoplastic crescent incision technique for the excision of large and/or multiple benign breast lesions compared to the conventional periareolar approach. Methodology A prospective, comparative cohort study was conducted in a single tertiary care center, from April 2022 to August 2023, on 74 histologically confirmed large (>3 cm) and/or multiple benign breast lesions. Breast lesions were excised by crescent oncoplasty incision (Group A) or periareolar incision (Group B). Surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, scar quality, breast symmetry, patient satisfaction, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using objective measurements such as the Vancouver Scar Scale, sonographic scar thickness, and the BREAST-Q questionnaire with a follow-up of three months. Results The crescent incision provided better access for peripheral lesions (mean lesion-to-nipple-areolar complex (NAC) distance: 3.20 ± 0.71 cm vs. 2.37 ± 0.82 cm, p < 0.001) and was more frequently used for lesions >5 cm (33% vs. 9%, p = 0.0051). Postoperative breast symmetry was significantly better in the crescent group based on sternal notch-to-nipple and midline-to-nipple measurements (p < 0.01). Cosmetic outcomes were superior in the crescent group based on the Vancouver Scar Scale (4.24 ± 1.93 vs. 6.62 ± 1.72, p < 0.001) and sonographic scar thickness (p = 0.02). Nipple sensation was preserved in all Group A patients. BREAST-Q scores for satisfaction, psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being were comparable between groups throughout follow-up. Conclusions The oncoplastic crescent incision is a safe and effective alternative to the conventional periareolar approach for excising large or multiple benign breast lesions. It provides superior cosmetic outcomes, better lesion access, and comparable patient-reported quality of life, supporting its broader adoption in benign breast surgery.
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.