Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Robotic Versus Conventional Completion Thyroidectomy: A 10-year Experience.

IF 1.2 4区医学 Q3 SURGERY

Surgical Innovation Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-04 DOI:10.1177/15533506241273345

Mohammad Hussein, Peter P Issa, Alexandra LaForteza, Mahmoud Omar, Brandon Magazine, Ali Abdelhady, Eslam Hossam, Mohamed Shama, Eman Toraih, Emad Kandil

{"title":"Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Robotic Versus Conventional Completion Thyroidectomy: A 10-year Experience.","authors":"Mohammad Hussein, Peter P Issa, Alexandra LaForteza, Mahmoud Omar, Brandon Magazine, Ali Abdelhady, Eslam Hossam, Mohamed Shama, Eman Toraih, Emad Kandil","doi":"10.1177/15533506241273345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Robotic thyroidectomy is gaining popularity, yet its role in completion thyroidectomy remains unclear. We aimed to compare robotic vs conventional completion thyroidectomy for thyroid nodules.Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients undergoing completion thyroidectomy from 2010-2020, either by conventional open technique (n = 87) or a robotic remote-access approach (n = 44). Outcomes were compared between groups.Results: A total of 131 patients were included. The robotic cohort was younger (45.3 ± 14.0 vs 55.5 ± 14.5 years, P < 0.001) with a lower BMI (25.9 ± 5.5 vs 33.7 ± 7.8 kg/m2, P < 0.001). Operative time was longer for robotic procedures (139 min vs 99 min, P < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter after robotic surgery, with 25% discharged the same day as compared to 5.7% in the open thyroidectomy cohort (P = 0.006). Overall rates of complication were comparable (P = 0.65). Transient recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred in 4.6% of patients, which was similar between both cohorts (P = 0.66).Conclusion: Robotic completion thyroidectomy appears safe and effective, achieving shorter hospitalization than conventional open approaches despite longer operative times. Appropriate patient selection and surgical technique optimization are key. Larger prospective studies should investigate costs and long-term patient-reported outcomes.","PeriodicalId":22095,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Innovation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15533506241273345","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Robotic thyroidectomy is gaining popularity, yet its role in completion thyroidectomy remains unclear. We aimed to compare robotic vs conventional completion thyroidectomy for thyroid nodules.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed patients undergoing completion thyroidectomy from 2010-2020, either by conventional open technique (n = 87) or a robotic remote-access approach (n = 44). Outcomes were compared between groups.

Results: A total of 131 patients were included. The robotic cohort was younger (45.3 ± 14.0 vs 55.5 ± 14.5 years, P < 0.001) with a lower BMI (25.9 ± 5.5 vs 33.7 ± 7.8 kg/m², P < 0.001). Operative time was longer for robotic procedures (139 min vs 99 min, P < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter after robotic surgery, with 25% discharged the same day as compared to 5.7% in the open thyroidectomy cohort (P = 0.006). Overall rates of complication were comparable (P = 0.65). Transient recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy occurred in 4.6% of patients, which was similar between both cohorts (P = 0.66).

Conclusion: Robotic completion thyroidectomy appears safe and effective, achieving shorter hospitalization than conventional open approaches despite longer operative times. Appropriate patient selection and surgical technique optimization are key. Larger prospective studies should investigate costs and long-term patient-reported outcomes.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估机器人与传统完整甲状腺切除术的有效性和安全性：十年经验。

背景：机器人甲状腺切除术越来越受欢迎，但其在完成甲状腺切除术中的作用仍不明确。我们旨在比较机器人与传统的甲状腺结节完整切除术：这项回顾性研究分析了 2010-2020 年间接受完形甲状腺切除术的患者，他们分别采用了传统开放技术（87 人）或机器人远程入路方法（44 人）。结果：共纳入131名患者：结果：共纳入131名患者。机器人组患者年龄较小（45.3 ± 14.0 岁 vs 55.5 ± 14.5 岁，P < 0.001），体重指数较低（25.9 ± 5.5 vs 33.7 ± 7.8 kg/m2，P < 0.001）。机器人手术的手术时间更长（139 分钟 vs 99 分钟，P < 0.001）。机器人手术后的住院时间更短，25%的患者当天就能出院，而开放式甲状腺切除术队列中只有5.7%的患者当天就能出院（P = 0.006）。总体并发症发生率相当（P = 0.65）。4.6%的患者出现一过性喉返神经麻痹，两组患者的情况相似（P = 0.66）：机器人完成甲状腺切除术似乎安全有效，尽管手术时间较长，但住院时间比传统开放式方法短。适当的患者选择和手术技术优化是关键。更大规模的前瞻性研究应调查成本和患者报告的长期疗效。

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

Surgical Innovation 医学-外科

CiteScore

2.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Surgical Innovation (SRI) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal focusing on minimally invasive surgical techniques, new instruments such as laparoscopes and endoscopes, and new technologies. SRI prepares surgeons to think and work in "the operating room of the future" through learning new techniques, understanding and adapting to new technologies, maintaining surgical competencies, and applying surgical outcomes data to their practices. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).