Quality of Life and Complications after Nipple- versus Skin-Sparing Mastectomy followed by Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) has emerged as an alternative procedure for skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM), followed by immediate breast reconstruction. Because oncologic safety appears similar, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and complication risks may guide decision-making in individual patients. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to compare PROs and complication rates after NSM and SSM. METHODS: A systematic literature review evaluating NSM versus SSM was performed using the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases. Methodologic quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Form for Cohort Studies. Primary outcomes were PROs and complications. Studies that evaluated BREAST-Q scores were used to perform meta-analyses on five BREAST-Q domains. RESULTS: Thirteen comparative studies including 3895 patients were selected from 1202 articles found. Meta-analyses of the BREAST-Q domains showed a significant mean difference of 7.64 in the Sexual Well-being domain ( P = 0.01) and 4.71 in the Psychosocial Well-being domain ( P = 0.03), both in favor of NSM. Using the specifically designed questionnaires, no differences in overall satisfaction scores were found. There were no differences in overall complication rates between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction scores were high after both NSM and SSM; however, NSM led to a higher sexual and psychosocial well-being. No differences in complication rates were found. In combination with other factors, such as oncologic treatments, complication risk profile, and fear of cancer recurrence, the decision for NSM or SSM has to be made on an individual basis and only if NSM is considered to be oncologically safe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".