Oncological, surgical, and cosmetic outcomes of endoscopic <i>versus</i> conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy: meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy has been developed to improve the cosmetic outcomes of conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. This meta-analysis compares surgical, quality of life and oncological outcomes of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were systematically reviewed to identify literature relevant to endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy literature published through to August 2023. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and proportional and pairwise random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Surgical (operative time, duration of hospital stay, blood loss, necrosis, overall complications), quality of life (cosmesis, pain, nipple-areolar complex sensitivity) and oncological outcomes (margin positivity, recurrence, metastasis and breast cancer-specific mortality rate) were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1286 articles retrieved, 51 endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy studies and 12 conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy reviews were analysed; 10 non-randomized comparative studies (656 patients) were included in the pairwise analysis and 36 studies (comparative and single-group cohort studies; 2612 patients) in the proportional meta-analysis. Results showed no differences in oncological outcomes (mean follow-up of up to 52 months), comparable overall (OR = 0.49; P = 0.100) and necrotic complications (OR = 0.45; P = 0.150), and improved cosmetic satisfaction (OR = 1.88; P = 0.020). Comparing only single-incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy to conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy significantly reduced postoperative necrosis (OR = 0.19; P = 0.008). The proportional meta-analysis produced oncological and surgical outcome rates comparable to or lower than conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy rates. However, longer operative time (weighted mean difference = 43.08 min; P < 0.00001) and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference = 0.72 days; P = 0.0007) were observed. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy does not affect oncological outcomes in up to 52 months mean follow-up when compared with conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy and provides better cosmetic satisfaction, with a reduced risk of necrosis after single-incision endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy. As such, endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy may become a viable breast surgery option.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".