ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2026
Vacuum-assisted excision followed by minimal access surgery for a large fibroadenoma: lessons from a hybrid approach - a case report.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) are minimally invasive alternatives to surgery for the treatment of breast fibroadenomas. While both methods are effective in selected cases, their utility in managing large fibroadenomas remains uncertain. This report highlights a case where both HIFU and VAE failed to achieve adequate treatment of a giant fibroadenoma, necessitating surgical excision. Presentation of Case: A 17-year-old girl patient presented with a large, palpable, mobile mass in the upper outer quadrant of the left breast, measuring approximately 9 × 8 cm on ultrasound. HIFU treatment performed several years prior failed to reduce the lesion's volume or relieve symptoms. VAE using the Brevera system (9-G, 20-mm aperture needle) was attempted, with 10 aspiration cycles and 120 tissue cores obtained. Post-procedural imaging showed only 15-20% volume reduction. Due to insufficient shrinkage, complete excision was performed through a periareolar incision. The postoperative course was uneventful, with good cosmetic outcome. Discussion: This case demonstrates the limitations of HIFU and VAE in the treatment of large, fibrotic fibroadenomas. While VAE failed to achieve full excision, the partial debulking allowed for a smaller, more aesthetic surgical approach. The sequential use of VAE followed by limited open excision may be considered in select patients to optimize cosmetic outcomes. Conclusion: VAE is a well-established, minimally invasive option for the management of small to medium-sized fibroadenomas. However, its effectiveness in lesions exceeding 3-4 cm is limited. This case highlights the potential role of VAE as an adjunctive tool in selected cases of large fibroadenomas, where volume reduction can optimize less invasive surgical approaches. Careful patient selection remains critical to procedural success.
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.