A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Endoscopy-assisted breast conservation surgery (E-BCS) vs conventional breast conservation surgery (C-BCS) technique for the management of early breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Background: Endoscopy-assisted breast conserving surgery (E-BCS) was developed over 10 years ago as a method for breast cancer treatment with the potential advantage of less noticeable scarring. However, the evidence supporting its superiority over conventional breast conserving surgery (C-BCS) remains unclear.

Objective: This study aims to compare the outcomes of E-BCS and C-BCS for the treatment of early breast cancer.

Methods: A comprehensive search for relevant articles was performed using specific keywords in Medline, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library PubMed up to October 17th, 2022. Clinical trials that compared E-BCS with C-BCS in early breast cancer patients were collected.

Results: Our analysis of nine studies revealed that E-BCS was associated with shorter incision length [Mean Difference (MD) -6.50 cm (95% CI -10.75, -2.26), p = 0.003, I2 = 99%] and higher cosmetic score [MD 2.69 (95% CI 1.46, 3.93), p < 0.0001, I2 = 93%] compared with C-BCS. However, E-BCS had a longer operation time [MD 35.95 min (95% CI 19.12, 52.78), p < 0.0001, I2 = 93%] and greater drainage volume [MD 62.91 mL (95% CI 2.55, 123.27), p = 0.04, I2 = 79%]. There was no significant difference in blood loss volume (p = 0.06), drainage duration (p = 0.28), postoperative complications (p = 0.69), or local recurrence (p = 0.59) between the two groups.

Conclusion: Our study suggests that E-BCS offers a shorter incision length and better cosmetic outcome compared with C-BCS in the treatment of early breast cancer. However, E-BCS requires a longer operation time and has greater drainage volume. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/BD-230023DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

early breast
12
breast cancer
12
endoscopy-assisted breast
8
breast conservation
8
conservation surgery
8
surgery e-bcs
8
conventional breast
8
surgery c-bcs
8
breast conserving
8
conserving surgery
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!