ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
A Comparison of Modified Radical Mastectomy, Breast Conservation Therapy, and Nipple-sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Implant Reconstruction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study evaluated and compared the perioperative outcomes and quality of life associated with modified radical mastectomy (MRM), breast-conserving surgery (BCS), and nipple- and areola-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction (NSM-IBR). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 105 patients with breast cancer, stratified into MRM (n = 35), BCS (n = 35), and NSM-IBR (n = 35) groups. The perioperative outcomes (operative times, intraoperative blood loss, and recent complications) were subsequently compared across the 3 groups. Differences in patient satisfaction were assessed using the 36-item short form health survey scale 3 months after surgery. Results: In the NSM-IBR group, the mean operative time was 207.1 ± 38.7 minutes, significantly longer than that in the MRM and BCS groups ( Conclusions: NSM-IBR warrants promotion as a means to enhance the postoperative psychological and physiological health of patients with breast cancer. Surgeons should undergo specialized training to reduce complications associated with the procedural complexity of NSM-IBR.
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.