ArticleWorld journal of surgical oncology2025
Effect of endoscopic surgery on quality of life and clinical prognosis of patients with early breast cancer compared with traditional modified radical surgery.
Article in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors found in women. Plastic endoscopic surgery is a new surgical procedure that incorporates treatment for the tumor followed by breast reconstruction. The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of plastic endoscopic surgery vs. traditional procedures (modified radical surgery) regarding the quality of life and clinical prognosis for patients with early-stage breast cancer.
methodsPatients were divided into two groups depending on their surgical type. One group was the endoscopic group, which consisted of patients who had plastic endoscopic surgery (the patients with breast conservation needs included only tumors that were adequate for endoscopic surgery); the other was the traditional group, which consisted of patients who underwent traditional modified radical surgery (patients with no breast conservation needs, or were unsuitable for breast-conserving surgery due to a tumor or breast shape).
resultsAmong the 66 patients in the endoscopic group, 3 were lost to follow-up, while 2 out of the 52 participants were lost to follow-up in the traditional group. The operative time was longer in the endoscopic group versus the traditional group; however, intra-operative blood loss, duration of drainage, drainage volume, and length of incision were all significantly lower in the endoscopic group (P < 0.05). Repeated measures ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in FACT-B scores across time between groups (P < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons indicated that FACT-B scores improved over time from measures taken before surgery to measures taken after surgery (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between groups regarding local recurrence, distant metastasis, or mortality at 1, 2, or 3 years on follow-up (P > 0.05). The endoscopic group had a significantly lower rate of short-term complications than the traditional group (P < 0.05).
conclusionEndoscopic plastic surgery is a safe and effective treatment alternative for eligible patients seeking breast-conserving surgery, especially concerning improving perioperative outcomes and reducing short-term complications. However, as with any surgical approach, an individualized surgical approach must be made considering patient characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.