ArticleWorld journal of surgery2026
Endoscope-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Implant Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscope-Assisted Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Implant Reconstruction: A Retrospective Study.World journal of surgery · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer surgery increasingly favors nipple-sparing and endoscopic techniques to optimize oncological safety, cosmetic outcomes, and patient satisfaction. We aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy and postoperative safety profiles of endoscope-assisted and conventional open approaches for nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prosthetic reconstruction in breast carcinoma management.
methodsThis retrospective study evaluated 75 consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with concurrent prosthetic reconstruction at a tertiary referral center (Hanzhong Central Hospital) between December 2021 and December 2023. Patients were allocated into two groups based on the surgical modality: endoscope-assisted (n = 35) versus conventional open (n = 40) approaches based primarily on patient preference and secondarily on surgeon selection. In cases of significant comorbidities, conventional open mastectomy (or state type) was performed.
resultsWe observed significant differences in procedural characteristics between the endoscope-assisted and conventional open surgery cohorts. The endoscopic cohort had a 23.5% prolongation in operative duration, with a 64% reduction in total incision length. No significant differences were observed between the groups in critical clinical outcomes, including intraoperative hemostasis parameters, postoperative drainage volumes, complication profiles, or oncological safety markers. Implant removal was required in one patient in each group. Patient-reported outcome measures showed equivalence in BREAST-Q domains assessing chest wall integrity, psychosocial adaptation, and sexual well-being, along with comparable Harris functional assessment scores. The endoscopic approach yielded superior scar cosmesis as quantified using the SCAR-Q evaluation.
conclusionsEndoscope-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prosthetic reconstruction is not inferior to conventional open techniques regarding perioperative safety, oncological radicality, and multidimensional patient satisfaction metrics. This approach provides enhanced aesthetic outcomes through minimized cutaneous trauma.
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.