Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41177807›Full record

ReviewJournal of anesthesia2026

Confronting clinical tradition: ipsilateral arm use after breast cancer surgery in Japan.

Takahiro Tamura

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Takahiro TamuraDepartment of Anesthesiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-Cho, Showa-Ku, Nagoya, 466-8550, Japan. tamura.takahiro.x5@f.mail.nagoya-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6916-9988

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The long-standing practice of prohibiting ipsilateral arm use for intravenous access, blood draws, or blood pressure monitoring after breast cancer surgery has persisted in many countries and remains common in some Japanese institutions, often based on routine signage and overly simplified education. While historically justified in the era of Halsted's radical mastectomy owing to high postoperative lymphedema rates, today's surgical landscape, with the increasing use of breast-conserving surgery and sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), has seen a marked decline in clinically significant arm swelling. Recent large retrospective studies and society statements (Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia, American Society of Breast Surgeons, and Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists) support risk-based, individualized assessments rather than blanket exclusion. This article examines the cultural, educational, and systemic factors that maintain outdated restrictions and presents a symptom-guided risk stratification framework. Asymptomatic patients 1 year after SLNB or 3 years after axillary lymph node dissection/regional lymph node radiation are at low risk for access-related complications. This article explores the unintended harm of rigid policies, including compromised access, delay in care, and patient distress, and proposes strategies for institution-level policy revision and patient education. Shifting from prohibition to personalization aligns clinical practice with modern evidence, promotes patient autonomy, and prevents the perpetuation of outdated norms.

Indexed as

ArmBreast NeoplasmsMastectomyFemaleHumansJapanLymphedemaLymph Node ExcisionPatient Education as TopicPostoperative ComplicationsSentinel Lymph Node BiopsyBreast cancer surgeryIntravenous accessIpsilateral armLymphedemaPatient education

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.