Comparing the therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic minimally invasive surgery and traditional surgery for early-stage breast cancer: A meta-analysis.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Open Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-20 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1515/med-2024-1133

Qiyi Ma, Tingting Shi, Huan Wang, Jie Xing

{"title":"Comparing the therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic minimally invasive surgery and traditional surgery for early-stage breast cancer: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Qiyi Ma, Tingting Shi, Huan Wang, Jie Xing","doi":"10.1515/med-2024-1133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Early-stage breast cancer requires effective surgical interventions. This meta-analysis compares the therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic minimally invasive surgery (EMIS) with traditional surgery, such as modified radical mastectomy.Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome model, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until July 19, 2023. We included comparative trials, focusing on randomized controlled trials, retrospective, and prospective studies. Metrics analyzed included operative time, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and lymph node harvest using Stata version 17.Results: Out of 943 studies, six met the inclusion criteria. Endoscopic surgery had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.03, P < 0.01) but significantly less blood loss (WMD = -1.48, P < 0.01). No significant differences were noted in drainage volume and lymph node harvest.Conclusions: EMIS reduces intraoperative blood loss but requires more time than traditional surgeries. Both methods show comparable outcomes in postoperative drainage and lymph node harvest, supporting their efficacy in treating early-stage breast cancer.","PeriodicalId":19715,"journal":{"name":"Open Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":"20241133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11751671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2024-1133","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Early-stage breast cancer requires effective surgical interventions. This meta-analysis compares the therapeutic efficacy of endoscopic minimally invasive surgery (EMIS) with traditional surgery, such as modified radical mastectomy.

Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome model, we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until July 19, 2023. We included comparative trials, focusing on randomized controlled trials, retrospective, and prospective studies. Metrics analyzed included operative time, blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, and lymph node harvest using Stata version 17.

Results: Out of 943 studies, six met the inclusion criteria. Endoscopic surgery had a longer operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.03, P < 0.01) but significantly less blood loss (WMD = -1.48, P < 0.01). No significant differences were noted in drainage volume and lymph node harvest.

Conclusions: EMIS reduces intraoperative blood loss but requires more time than traditional surgeries. Both methods show comparable outcomes in postoperative drainage and lymph node harvest, supporting their efficacy in treating early-stage breast cancer.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Open Medicine Medicine-General Medicine

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

153

审稿时长

20 weeks

期刊介绍： Open Medicine is an open access journal that provides users with free, instant, and continued access to all content worldwide. The primary goal of the journal has always been a focus on maintaining the high quality of its published content. Its mission is to facilitate the exchange of ideas between medical science researchers from different countries. Papers connected to all fields of medicine and public health are welcomed. Open Medicine accepts submissions of research articles, reviews, case reports, letters to editor and book reviews.