ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Robotic versus endoscopic breast-conserving surgery: a comparative analysis of clinical outcomes and aesthetic outcomes in breast cancer.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07321145 (A Retrospective Analysis of Robot-Assisted Versus Endoscopic Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer), which is not on this 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.
A Retrospective Analysis of Robot-Assisted Versus Endoscopic Breast-Conserving Surgery for Breast Cancer
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast-conserving surgery (BCS) has evolved substantially with the introduction of minimally invasive techniques. Endoscopic BCS (E-BCS) has been applied for more than two decades, whereas robotic breast surgery, particularly robotic BCS (R-BCS), remains in an early developmental stage. This study compared the clinical outcomes of R-BCS and E-BCS in patients with breast cancer.
methodsWe performed a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent either R-BCS or E-BCS between April 2021 and August 2025. The results of this cohort were reported in the present study.
resultsThe study enrolled 132 patients, of whom 72 underwent R-BCS and 60 underwent E-BCS. All patients had unilateral disease. The mean age was 53.9 years in the R-BCS group and 54.4 years in the E-BCS group. After excluding cases with axillary lymph node dissection, the mean operative time was significantly shorter for R-BCS than for E-BCS (148.4 ± 36.9 vs. 167.5 ± 35.7 min, p = 0.034), and intraoperative blood loss was significantly lower in the R-BCS group (13.0 ± 7.0 vs. 19.8 ± 9.4 ml, p = 0.001). One patient in each group had a positive surgical margin, which was converted to negative after re-excision. No conversions to alternative surgical procedures occurred. Perioperative complication rates were comparable between groups, and both achieved favorable aesthetic outcomes. R-BCS demonstrated higher mean scores for scar appearance and length than E-BCS.
conclusionsR-BCS was associated with shorter operative time and reduced blood loss compared with E-BCS, which represents a promising surgical technique. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT07321145.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42126517What 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.