ArticleJournal of breast cancer2025
Surgical Safety of Minimally Invasive Surgery Compared to Conventional Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews.
Article in Journal of breast cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy in breast cancer: current evidence, technical considerations, and clinical outcomes.Updates in surgery · 2026Review
- Advanced techniques for mastopexy in patients with ptotic breasts requiring nipple-sparing mastectomy: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2026Review
- Robotic and endoscopic minimally invasive breast surgery: a narrative synthesis on divergent global adoption and emerging trends.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, endoscopy- and robot-assisted surgical techniques have been progressively incorporated into breast cancer treatment, leading to the enhancement of minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (M-NSM) procedure. To date, studies comparing the surgical complications, benefits, and drawbacks of M-NSM with those of conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (C-NSM) remain sparse. Electronic searches of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were performed. Log-rank statistics were used to compare the effects of M-NSM and C-NSM on various outcomes and estimate first-event-rate risk ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI). This study evaluated surgical safety based on postoperative complication rate. Surgical safety was evaluated by calculating the incidence of postoperative complications following each surgical approach, including overall complications, ischemia/necrosis of the nipple-areola complex, hematoma, infection, and implant-related complications. Based on a meta-analysis of 7 studies involving 3,426 patients, the overall postoperative complication rate (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97) and rate of nipple-areolar complex (NAC) necrosis (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.97) for M-NSM were slightly lower than those for C-NSM. The surgical safety of M-NSM may be comparable to or even superior to that of C-NSM, but confirmation via high-quality randomized controlled studies is required.
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.