ReviewGland surgery2026
Endoscopic and Da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery in breast cancer: a narrative review of current evidence, technical advances, and future perspectives.
Review in Gland surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been increasingly adopted in breast cancer management. Endoscopic breast surgery (EBS) and Da Vinci robotic-assisted breast surgery have emerged as the two principal MIS modalities, with the potential to combine adequate oncological safety with improved aesthetic outcomes. This review summarises the technical evolution, surgical and oncological outcomes, and learning curves of EBS and Da Vinci robotic-assisted breast surgery, and discusses cost considerations and future perspectives. Methods: We performed a structured search on PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to 31 March 2026, with a supplementary literature update conducted to include relevant studies published through 1 May 2026. We included studies comparing endoscopic or robotic-assisted techniques with conventional approaches for breast-conserving surgery (BCS), nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), axillary lymph-node dissection (ALND), and breast reconstruction. Randomised controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case series, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were eligible. Key Content and Findings: EBS, first developed in East Asian centres, can provide superior cosmetic outcomes in patients with early-stage breast cancer compared with conventional open surgery while maintaining acceptable short-term oncological results. Robotic-assisted NSM (RNSM) with the Da Vinci system provides three-dimensional high-definition visualisation, articulated EndoWrist instruments, and tremor filtering. Pooled data indicate that RNSM is associated with lower rates of skin-flap and nipple-areola complex (NAC) necrosis than conventional open NSM, with comparable short-term oncological outcomes; operative time and procedural costs remain higher. The learning curve for RNSM stabilises after approximately 20-50 cases. The latest development is the Da Vinci single-port (SP) system, which achieves a true single-incision mastectomy via a concealed axillary approach. Conclusions: Endoscopic and Da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery may be considered as minimally-invasive treatments for breast cancer surgery. Available data suggest short- to medium-term oncological equivalence with conventional surgery and favourable patient-reported outcomes, but long-term follow-up beyond 5 years remains scarce. Prospective randomised controlled trials with prolonged follow-up, formal cost-effectiveness analyses, and standardised training programmes are required before these techniques can be recommended for routine clinical use.
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.