SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive and open axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo conduct a structured assessment comparing perioperative performance and postoperative adverse events between minimally invasive axillary lymph node dissection (MI-ALND) and traditional open ALND in breast cancer patients, with the aim of offering data-driven support for surgical decision-making in clinical practice.
methodsWe systematically queried PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, covering the period from database inception to November 2025 to identify English language studies comparing MI-ALND with open ALND. Statistical processing was conducted in Stata 18. Summary effects were calculated as weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous measures and odds ratios (ORs) for discrete outcomes. Methodological quality of the eligible studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS).
resultsAcross the three eligible studies, a combined total of 239 individuals with breast cancer were assessed—112 underwent minimally invasive ALND and 127 received the traditional open procedure. The pooled analysis indicated that MI-ALND required more operative time (WMD = 11.72; 95% CI: 5.27,18.17; P = 0.02), and it was associated with a statistically lower estimated blood loss (WMD = − 13.27; 95% CI: −17.64 to − 8.91; P = 0.025), although the absolute difference was small. Postoperative complications showed no statistically significant difference between approaches in the pooled analysis; however, interpretation is limited by heterogeneous reporting and the small number of studies.
conclusionThis meta-analysis is an exploratory study and its conclusions are based solely on three small retrospective studies. MI-ALND may reduce estimated blood loss but prolong operative time, while evidence on morbidity and oncologic safety remains limited. Larger prospective studies with standardized outcomes are needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41772335What 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.