Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a comparative analysis with conventional and endoscopic techniques through a systematic review
- PMID: 40377824
- DOI: 10.1007/s11701-025-02388-0
Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy: a comparative analysis with conventional and endoscopic techniques through a systematic review
Abstract
Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy (R-NSM) has emerged as an innovative approach in breast cancer surgery, offering improved aesthetic outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, its adoption remains controversial due to limited regulatory approval, higher costs, and the need for further comparative evidence. This systematic review aims to evaluate and compare conventional, endoscopic, and robotic NSM techniques to clarify their respective benefits, limitations, and outcomes. Following OSF registration (osf.io/6xt4s), a systematic review was conducted, identifying studies on nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) across multiple databases (January 2025). No language or data availability restrictions were applied. Study quality was assessed using the QualSyst criteria (range: 0.0-1.0). Twelve studies met inclusion criteria (ten observational, two clinical trials), with quality scores ranging from 0.75 to 0.95. R-NSM was associated with longer operative times (+ 25-60 min) and higher costs (+ $3,700-$5,000 per procedure). However, it demonstrated superior aesthetic outcomes, with concealed scars and higher patient satisfaction at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.03). Oncologic safety was comparable among NSM techniques, with no significant differences in recurrence, survival, or positive margin rates. While R-NSM initially resulted in prolonged hospital stays (+ 1.5-3 days), this effect diminished with surgical experience. In addition, R-NSM was linked to reduced intraoperative blood loss and a lower risk of severe postoperative complications, particularly nipple-areola complex necrosis. R-NSM offers promising benefits in selected patients, particularly regarding cosmetic outcomes and reduced complications. However, challenges remain, including high costs, longer surgical times, and the need for standardized protocols. Future research should focus on optimizing surgical techniques, refining patient selection, and conducting high-quality randomized controlled trials to establish its definitive role in breast cancer management.
Keywords: Breast cancer; Breast surgery; Esthetic outcomes; Minimally invasive breast surgery; Nipple-sparing mastectomy; Oncologic safety; Robotic surgery.
© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable.
Similar articles
-
Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction with Gel Implant: Technique, Preliminary Results and Patient-Reported Cosmetic Outcome.Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 Jan;26(1):42-52. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-6704-2. Epub 2018 Aug 14. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019. PMID: 30109537
-
Outcomes of robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy in women with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Robot Surg. 2023 Aug;17(4):1493-1509. doi: 10.1007/s11701-023-01547-5. Epub 2023 Feb 20. J Robot Surg. 2023. PMID: 36808041
-
Safety and Feasibility of Robotic Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Direct-to-Implant Reconstruction - Insights From the One of the Largest Centers in Asia.Clin Breast Cancer. 2025 Apr;25(3):277-282. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2024.12.013. Epub 2024 Dec 25. Clin Breast Cancer. 2025. PMID: 39824711
-
Oncological, surgical, and cosmetic outcomes of endoscopic versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy: meta-analysis.BJS Open. 2025 May 7;9(3):zraf011. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraf011. BJS Open. 2025. PMID: 40392529 Free PMC article.
-
Postoperative outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy with prosthesis breast reconstruction in breast cancer: a meta-analysis.J Robot Surg. 2024 Jun 29;18(1):274. doi: 10.1007/s11701-024-02030-5. J Robot Surg. 2024. PMID: 38951387 Review.
References
-
- Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al (2021) Global cancer statistics 2020: globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3):209–249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Sarfati B, Honart JF, Leymarie N, Kolb F, Rimareix F (2016) Robotic-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy: a feasibility study on cadaveric models. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69(11):1571–1572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2016.08.007 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Toesca A, Peradze N, Manconi A et al (2017) Robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer: feasibility and safety study. Breast 31:51–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.10.009 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Park KU, Cha C, Pozzi G et al (2023) Robot-assisted nipple sparing mastectomy: recent advancements and ongoing controversies. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 15(2):127–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00487-1 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous