Quality of life after endoscopic vs. conventional open thyroidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Vishesh Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Pawan Agarwal, Dhananjaya Sharma, Saroj Kanta Mishra
{"title":"Quality of life after endoscopic vs. conventional open thyroidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Vishesh Agrawal, Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Pawan Agarwal, Dhananjaya Sharma, Saroj Kanta Mishra","doi":"10.1007/s00423-025-03616-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We have performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting on Health-related quality of life (QoL) after endoscopic thyroidectomy (ETx) vs. open thyroidectomy (OTx).</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective was to evaluate the QoL outcomes of ETx compared to OTx.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligibility criteria: Studies comparing ETx vs OTx INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and online registers were searched for articles comparing QoL in ETx vs OTx.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>Articles were assessed for risk of bias using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>The main summary measures using the random effects model were mean difference (MD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three studies were included in the meta-analysis.  Two studies compared QoL between Transoral Endoscopic Thyroidectomy vs OTx and one compared Transaxillary Endoscopic Thyroidectomy vs OTx. There were no significant differences in the QoL outcomes using SF-36 scale. Pain scores assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and overall satisfaction were also comparable between ETx and OTx.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that QoL outcomes for ETx and OTx may be comparable based on the currently available evidence. The substantial heterogeneity across studies and the lack of adequately powered trials limit the generalizability of these findings. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials with robust QoL measures, such as ThyPRO-39, are needed to provide higher-quality evidence on the comparative effectiveness of ETx versus OTx.</p>","PeriodicalId":17983,"journal":{"name":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","volume":"410 1","pages":"144"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12021691/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-025-03616-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We have performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting on Health-related quality of life (QoL) after endoscopic thyroidectomy (ETx) vs. open thyroidectomy (OTx).

Objectives: The objective was to evaluate the QoL outcomes of ETx compared to OTx.

Methods: Eligibility criteria: Studies comparing ETx vs OTx INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and online registers were searched for articles comparing QoL in ETx vs OTx.

Risk of bias: Articles were assessed for risk of bias using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.

Synthesis of results: The main summary measures using the random effects model were mean difference (MD).

Results: Three studies were included in the meta-analysis.  Two studies compared QoL between Transoral Endoscopic Thyroidectomy vs OTx and one compared Transaxillary Endoscopic Thyroidectomy vs OTx. There were no significant differences in the QoL outcomes using SF-36 scale. Pain scores assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and overall satisfaction were also comparable between ETx and OTx.

Conclusion: Our systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that QoL outcomes for ETx and OTx may be comparable based on the currently available evidence. The substantial heterogeneity across studies and the lack of adequately powered trials limit the generalizability of these findings. Future large-scale randomized controlled trials with robust QoL measures, such as ThyPRO-39, are needed to provide higher-quality evidence on the comparative effectiveness of ETx versus OTx.

内镜与常规开放式甲状腺切除术后的生活质量:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:我们对内镜甲状腺切除术(ETx)与开放式甲状腺切除术(OTx)后健康相关生活质量(QoL)的研究进行了荟萃分析。目的:目的是评价ETx与OTx的生活质量结果。方法:入选标准:比较ETx和OTx的研究。信息来源:PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆和在线注册库,检索比较ETx和OTx的生活质量的文章。偏倚风险:使用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估文章的偏倚风险。结果的综合:采用随机效应模型的主要综合测度是均值差(MD)。结果:meta分析纳入了3项研究。两项研究比较经口内镜甲状腺切除术与OTx的生活质量,一项研究比较经腋窝内镜甲状腺切除术与OTx的生活质量。使用SF-36量表,两组间的生活质量无显著差异。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估的疼痛评分和总体满意度在ETx和OTx之间也具有可比性。结论:我们的系统回顾和荟萃分析表明,根据现有证据,ETx和OTx的生活质量结果可能具有可比性。研究之间的巨大异质性和缺乏足够有力的试验限制了这些发现的普遍性。未来需要进行大规模随机对照试验,如ThyPRO-39,以提供更高质量的证据,证明ETx与OTx的比较有效性。
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.70%
发文量
342
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Langenbeck''s Archives of Surgery aims to publish the best results in the field of clinical surgery and basic surgical research. The main focus is on providing the highest level of clinical research and clinically relevant basic research. The journal, published exclusively in English, will provide an international discussion forum for the controlled results of clinical surgery. The majority of published contributions will be original articles reporting on clinical data from general and visceral surgery, while endocrine surgery will also be covered. Papers on basic surgical principles from the fields of traumatology, vascular and thoracic surgery are also welcome. Evidence-based medicine is an important criterion for the acceptance of papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信