2021
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09950-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Oncologic Outcome of Endoscopic Assisted Breast Surgery Compared with Conventional Approach in Breast Cancer: An Analysis of 3426 Primary Operable Breast Cancer Patients from Single Institute with and Without Propensity Score Matching

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
15
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
2
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Luo et al found no significant difference in DFS (64.5% vs 60.8%; P = .88) and OS (81.7% vs 78.6%; P = .95) between groups undergoing mastoscopic axillary lymph node dissection vs completion axillary lymph node dissection. Lai et al reported a difference in OS between endoscope-assisted breast surgery and conventional surgery groups before propensity score matching but this difference was no longer significant after propensity score matching. In a comparison of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant reconstruction with breast-conserving surgery, DFS and OS in the breast-conserving surgery group were lower than those in the endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy group, but the difference did not show statistical significance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Luo et al found no significant difference in DFS (64.5% vs 60.8%; P = .88) and OS (81.7% vs 78.6%; P = .95) between groups undergoing mastoscopic axillary lymph node dissection vs completion axillary lymph node dissection. Lai et al reported a difference in OS between endoscope-assisted breast surgery and conventional surgery groups before propensity score matching but this difference was no longer significant after propensity score matching. In a comparison of endoscopic nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant reconstruction with breast-conserving surgery, DFS and OS in the breast-conserving surgery group were lower than those in the endoscopic-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy group, but the difference did not show statistical significance.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, liver sonography, chest x-ray, and whole-body bone scan were used to exclude the possibility of distant metastasis. The indications of 3D E-NSM (3,14) included early-stage breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), stage I, II or IIIA), a tumor size ≤ 5 cm, no apparent multiple lymph node metastases, and no evidence of nipple, skin, or chest wall invasion (3,22,23) . 3D E-NSM was contraindicated in any patients with apparent NAC involvement, in ammatory breast cancer, breast cancer with chest wall or skin invasion, locally advanced breast cancer, breast cancer with extensive axillary lymph node metastasis (stage IIIB or later) (3,22,23) .…”
Section: Indications Of Single-port 3d Videoscope Assisted Endoscopic...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, patients with severe comorbidity, such as heart disease, renal failure, liver dysfunction, and poor performance status as assessed by the primary physicians were not suitable as good candidates for 3D EABS (3,22,23) .…”
Section: Indications Of Single-port 3d Videoscope Assisted Endoscopic...mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…At the end of the 20th century, the theory of minimally invasive surgery gradually matured and endoscopic surgery developed rapidly 10 . Minimally invasive surgery, represented by endoscopic technology, has the advantages of accuracy and small wound 11 . The maturity of these minimally invasive techniques and the success of clinical practice provide useful theories and techniques for the development of breast surgery.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%