SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Comparative analysis of robotic- and endoscopic-assisted minimally invasive nipple-areola complex-sparing mastectomy for breast cancer: a meta-analysis with subgroup analyses.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare perioperative outcomes, postoperative complications, aesthetic-related outcomes, and oncologic outcomes between minimally invasive nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), including robotic-assisted and endoscopic-assisted approaches, and conventional open NSM in patients with breast cancer. Studies comparing minimally invasive and open nipple-sparing mastectomy were searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Data on operative outcomes, complications, cosmetic-related indicators, and recurrence were extracted and pooled. Twelve studies were analyzed. Minimally invasive surgery required a longer operative time but was associated with less blood loss, shorter incisions, and shorter reconstruction time. It also showed lower rates of overall complications, skin necrosis, seroma, and hematoma or bleeding. Delayed wound healing, nipple-areola complex complications, nipple necrosis, flap necrosis, and recurrence did not differ significantly between the two groups. Minimally invasive NSM may offer advantages in selected perioperative outcomes, including reduced surgical trauma and postoperative complications. However, evidence regarding long-term oncologic outcomes, recurrence, and patient-reported aesthetic benefits remains limited and requires further validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42717132What 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.