ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2025
Long-term oncologic outcomes of minimal access (endoscopic or Robotic Assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy compared with conventional approach in breast cancer - a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative analysis of robotic- and endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis with subgroup analyses.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Robotic-assisted versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of Surgeons' Perspectives and Perceived Readiness to Adopt Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery in a Low- and Middle-Income Setting.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Single axillary incision for minimal access (endoscopic or robotic-assisted) nipple sparing mastectomy: axillary crease or lateral chest wall incision?Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Minimal-access nipple-sparing mastectomy: current evidence, limitations, and future evaluation.Translational breast cancer research : a journal focusing on translational research in breast cancer · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo compare the clinical and oncologic outcomes of minimal access (endoscopic- or robotic-assisted) nipple-sparing mastectomy (MA-NSM) and conventional NSM (C-NSM).
backgroundMA-NSM has been increasingly applied in the treatment of patients with breast cancer. However, high-quality long-term follow-up data remains lacking. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was conducted from single institute to compare the oncologic outcome of MA-NSM versus C-NSM. The clinical results and oncologic outcome (margin involvement rate, local recurrence and overall survival) were compared. To prevent bias, a cohort study approach was conducted with propensity score matching (PSM) method.
resultsDuring study, 1108 NSM procedures were performed. After inclusion and exclusion criteria, 905 NSM procedures were enrolled. These included 317 MA-NSM (245 endoscopic-assisted NSM and 72 robotic-assisted NSM), and 588 C-NSM cases. After PSM, there were 289 MA-NSM and 289 C-NSM cases compared. There were fewer major (Clavien-Dindo grade II and above) complications in MA-NSM compared with C-NSM (4.1% versus 10.7%, p = 0.03). The margin involvement rate of C-NSM was 3.5% versus 3.8% for MA-NSM (p>0.99). The follow-up duration of C-NSM patients was longer at 75.3 ± 46 months compared to 66.1 ± 39.1 months for MA-NSM patients. In Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis, there was no difference in recurrence-free survival (p = 0.17), however metastasis-free (p = 0.048), disease-free (p = 0.048) and overall survival curves (p = 0.025) showed marginally significant difference between C-NSM and MA-NSM after PSM.
conclusionOur current study demonstrates that MA-NSM is oncologically safe, with comparable results in margin involvement, locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis and overall survival compared to C-NSM.
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.