ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes between endoscopic and open nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant reconstruction versus breast-conserving surgery.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
objectivesTo compare perioperative outcomes, complications, aesthetic results, and patient-reported satisfaction among breast-conserving surgery (BCS), endoscopic nipple-sparing (ENS) mastectomy with immediate implant-based reconstruction, and open nipple-sparing (ONS) mastectomy, and to identify factors independently associated with aesthetic outcome.
methodsThis retrospective study included 160 early-stage breast cancer patients (BCS=100, ENS=30, ONS=30). Perioperative outcomes, complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo system, oncologic safety, aesthetic scores, and BREAST-Q domains were analyzed. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of aesthetic outcomes. A 1:1 propensity score-matched sensitivity analysis (30 pairs) was conducted, which confirmed significantly reduced blood loss in the ENS group (P<0.001), and showed a numerical but non-significant difference in aesthetic scores (P=0.088).
resultsThe ENS group had the longest operative time (159.2 min), whereas the ONS group experienced the greatest intraoperative blood loss (72.5 ml). Patients in the BCS group had the shortest drainage and hospital stay (both P<0.001). The overall complication rates were 7.0% in BCS group, 20.0% in the ENS group, and 16.7% in the ONS group. Aesthetic scores were highest in the BCS group (84.9), followed by the ENS group (79.2) and the ONS group (75.8) (all P<0.001). BREAST-Q scores demonstrated a similar pattern. No significant differences were observed among groups regarding margin positivity or short-term recurrence. Multivariable analysis identified surgical approach, complications, and tumor location as independent predictors of aesthetic outcomes.
conclusionBCS remains the preferred option for eligible patients with early-stage breast cancer. For patients unsuited to BCS, ENS is associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss than ONS. While aesthetic scores showed a favorable trend in the ENS group, this difference did not reach statistical significance in the propensity score-matched analysis.
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.