ArticlePloS one2026
Ultrasound-guided microwave ablation versus conventional surgery for Granulomatous Lobular Mastitis: A two-center retrospective comparative stud.
Article in PloS one, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGranulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM) is a chronic inflammatory breast disease that causes substantial pain, cosmetic deformity, and psychosocial distress. Evidence directly comparing ultrasound-guided microwave ablation (MWA) with conventional surgery (CS) remains limited.
methodsWe conducted a two-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive women with core needle biopsy-confirmed GLM treated between March 2020 and February 2025. Treatment allocation was non-random and reflected routine clinical decision-making. The primary outcomes were overall cure and recurrence. Secondary outcomes included perioperative resource utilization and patient-reported outcomes assessed with a BREAST-Q domain-based questionnaire adapted for GLM follow-up. Baseline balance was described with both P values and standardized mean differences (SMDs).
resultsAmong 233 patients (MWA, n = 102; CS, n = 131), overall cure was achieved in 97.06% and 96.18% of patients, respectively (risk difference, 0.88 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.76 to 5.51; P = 1.000). Recurrence occurred in 4.90% of the MWA group and 3.82% of the CS group (risk difference, 1.09 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.24 to 6.41; P = 0.751) during a median follow-up of 18.5 months. Compared with CS, MWA was associated with lower estimated blood loss, shorter procedure time, lower postoperative drainage burden, and shorter hospitalization (all P < 0.001), while total hospitalization cost did not differ significantly. Questionnaire scores favored MWA for sexual well-being, breast satisfaction, and scar satisfaction, whereas psychological well-being, chest physical well-being, and satisfaction with the medical team were similar between groups. SMDs indicated some baseline imbalance, particularly for multiple-quadrant involvement and ultrasound lesion size.
conclusionsIn this retrospective observational comparison, MWA and CS were associated with similarly high cure rates and low recurrence. MWA was additionally associated with lower perioperative burden and better breast- and scar-related satisfaction. Prospective studies with standardized co-interventions, confounding adjustment, and validated patient-reported outcome assessment are warranted.
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.