ReviewJournal of anesthesia2026
Confronting clinical tradition: ipsilateral arm use after breast cancer surgery in Japan.
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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 This article examines the cultural, educational, and systemic factors that maintain outdated restrictions and presents a symptom-guided risk stratification framework.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
Identifiers
41177807What 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.