Comparison of robotic, conventional, and endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

0 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Na An, Wenjuan Wang, Dandan Dai, Fei Yuan, Yufeng Zhang
{"title":"Comparison of robotic, conventional, and endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction for breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Na An, Wenjuan Wang, Dandan Dai, Fei Yuan, Yufeng Zhang","doi":"10.17305/bb.2025.11687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this network meta-analysis (NMA), we aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM), conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM), and endoscope-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (ENSM), each combined with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR), for the treatment of breast cancer. Relevant studies published up to June 15, 2024, were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Data extracted from these studies were analyzed using Stata 15.1 and the Gemtc 1.0.1 package in R 4.2.3. A Bayesian framework and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo model were employed to conduct the NMA. Additionally, a ranking chart was generated to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the surgical methods. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the NMA. The results indicated that ENSM with immediate implant-based reconstruction was associated with a smaller incision compared to CNSM. RNSM combined with IPBR was linked to a lower incidence of total complications, Grade 3 complications, and nipple-areola complex necrosis than CNSM. Furthermore, RNSM with IPBR demonstrated a lower recurrence rate than CNSM. However, CNSM with IPBR showed better outcomes in terms of surgical time, hospital stay, and positive margin infiltration. In contrast, RNSM and ENSM, both combined with IPBR, outperformed CNSM in terms of incision length, complication rates, and recurrence outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72398,"journal":{"name":"Biomolecules & biomedicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomolecules & biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17305/bb.2025.11687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this network meta-analysis (NMA), we aimed to evaluate the relative efficacy of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (RNSM), conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy (CNSM), and endoscope-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy (ENSM), each combined with immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR), for the treatment of breast cancer. Relevant studies published up to June 15, 2024, were identified through searches of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Data extracted from these studies were analyzed using Stata 15.1 and the Gemtc 1.0.1 package in R 4.2.3. A Bayesian framework and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo model were employed to conduct the NMA. Additionally, a ranking chart was generated to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the surgical methods. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the NMA. The results indicated that ENSM with immediate implant-based reconstruction was associated with a smaller incision compared to CNSM. RNSM combined with IPBR was linked to a lower incidence of total complications, Grade 3 complications, and nipple-areola complex necrosis than CNSM. Furthermore, RNSM with IPBR demonstrated a lower recurrence rate than CNSM. However, CNSM with IPBR showed better outcomes in terms of surgical time, hospital stay, and positive margin infiltration. In contrast, RNSM and ENSM, both combined with IPBR, outperformed CNSM in terms of incision length, complication rates, and recurrence outcomes.

机器人、传统和内窥镜保留乳头乳房切除术与立即假体乳房重建术对乳腺癌的比较:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
在这项网络荟萃分析(NMA)中,我们旨在评估机器人保留乳头乳房切除术(RNSM)、传统保留乳头乳房切除术(CNSM)和内窥镜辅助保留乳头乳房切除术(ENSM)联合立即假体乳房重建术(IPBR)治疗乳腺癌的相对疗效。截止到2024年6月15日发表的相关研究,通过PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library和Web of Science进行检索。从这些研究中提取的数据使用Stata 15.1和R 4.2.3中的Gemtc 1.0.1包进行分析。采用贝叶斯框架和马尔可夫链蒙特卡罗模型进行NMA。此外,还生成了一个排名表来比较手术方法的优缺点。10项研究符合纳入标准并被纳入NMA。结果表明,与CNSM相比,即刻种植体重建的ENSM切口更小。与CNSM相比,RNSM联合IPBR的总并发症、3级并发症和乳头乳晕复合体坏死的发生率较低。此外,伴有IPBR的RNSM的复发率低于CNSM。然而,CNSM合并IPBR在手术时间、住院时间和阳性切缘浸润方面表现出更好的结果。相比之下,RNSM和ENSM联合IPBR在切口长度、并发症发生率和复发率方面都优于CNSM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信