ArticleEuropean journal of breast health2026
Minimally Invasive Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Early Experience With Endoscopic and Robotic Techniques.
Article in European journal of breast health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic and Robotic Minimally Invasive Breast Surgery (MIBS) for Benign Breast Lesions: Our Experience of 80 Cases and Descriptive Comparison.European journal of breast health · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), performed via endoscopic or robotic-assisted approaches, has been developed to improve cosmetic and psychosocial outcomes without compromising oncologic safety. While international experience is growing, data from low- and middle-income countries remain limited. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective case series of five consecutive patients (six breasts) who underwent minimally invasive NSM between January 2024 and June 2025 in an Indian center. Three patients underwent conventional endoscopic NSM and two underwent robotic-assisted NSM (one unilateral and one bilateral). Data collected included demographic and genetic status, tumor biology, operative details, reconstruction method, perioperative complications, pathology, and short-term follow-up. Primary endpoints were feasibility and safety; secondary endpoints were margin status, early oncologic outcomes, and cosmetic satisfaction. Results: All procedures were completed successfully without conversion to open surgery. Median (range) operative time was 210 (180-300) minutes, with robotic procedures requiring longer duration. No intraoperative complications, nipple-areolar necrosis, or implant losses were observed. Two patients developed minor seromas that resolved with aspiration. Pathological margins were negative in all cases. At a median follow-up of six (4-18) months, all patients were alive, disease-free, and reported good-to-excellent cosmetic satisfaction. Conclusion: Our early experience demonstrates that both endoscopic and robotic-assisted NSM are feasible and safe in carefully selected patients, providing satisfactory oncologic and esthetic outcomes. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the very small sample size, short follow-up, and absence of a comparator group. Larger prospective multicenter studies with long-term outcomes are required to confirm oncologic safety and define the role of minimally invasive NSM India.
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.