Local infiltration anesthesia (anterior field block) vs. general anesthesia for thyroidectomy: effects on operative time, complications, and cost-a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Frontiers in Surgery Pub Date : 2026-09-30 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2026.1697921
Khadeeja Ali Hamzah, Hassan H Eladl, Shehab Elfiqi, Ahmed Abdelkader Saad Elsehsah, Amr E Zeweta, Ahmed Nabil Ali, Mohamed Wagdy, Yousif Hameed Kurmasha, Yasmeen Jamal Alabdallat
{"title":"Local infiltration anesthesia (anterior field block) vs. general anesthesia for thyroidectomy: effects on operative time, complications, and cost-a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis with subgroup analysis.","authors":"Khadeeja Ali Hamzah, Hassan H Eladl, Shehab Elfiqi, Ahmed Abdelkader Saad Elsehsah, Amr E Zeweta, Ahmed Nabil Ali, Mohamed Wagdy, Yousif Hameed Kurmasha, Yasmeen Jamal Alabdallat","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2026.1697921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Thyroidectomy involves the removal of part or all of the thyroid gland, commonly performed for goiters, hyperthyroidism, or carcinomas, with 450,000-500,000 procedures performed annually in the United States. General anesthesia is traditionally used, providing optimal surgical conditions but associated with risks such as cardiovascular complications and longer hospital stays. Local anesthesia is gaining interest for high-risk patients, offering potentially similar outcomes to general anesthesia, while reducing postoperative complications and costs. The choice of anesthetic technique impacts patient safety, healthcare costs, and overall experience, yet no meta-analysis has previously compared local and general anesthesia for thyroidectomy.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare surgical and perioperative outcomes of general anesthesia vs. local anesthesia in thyroidectomy, focusing on operative time, complications, cost, and postoperative recovery, to inform clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed from database inception to August 2025. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing local infiltration anesthesia with general anesthesia in patients with thyroidectomy. Key outcomes included operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, hospital stay length, pain scores, patient satisfaction, and cost. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials and the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool for non-randomized studies. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), calculating mean differences and risk ratios under a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed using the <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> statistic. Statistical significance was set at <i>p</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic search identified 1,785 studies, of which 252 duplicates were removed. After screening, 1,508 studies were excluded, leading to a full-text review of 25 studies and ultimate inclusion of 5 studies comprising 508 patients undergoing thyroid surgery with either local or general anesthesia. Local anesthesia was associated with a shorter operative time than general anesthesia (mean difference -18.32 min, 95% CI: -27.31 to -9.15), but heterogeneity was high (<i>I</i> <sup>2</sup> = 95%), and the effect was significant only in cohort studies and not in randomized trials, and therefore, this finding should be interpreted with caution. No significant differences were observed between groups in nerve injury or respiratory distress, although evidence certainty for these outcomes was low. A cost analysis suggested that local anesthesia was less expensive than general anesthesia across all studies reporting cost data. Patient satisfaction appeared comparably high in both groups across the studies that assessed this factor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Local anesthesia was associated with shorter operative times, lower costs, and shorter hospital stays compared with general anesthesia in thyroidectomy. However, these findings are drawn from a small number of studies and therefore should be interpreted cautiously. General anesthesia also likely remains necessary for more advanced procedures requiring airway control and complete patient immobility.</p>","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":"13 ","pages":"1697921"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13662020/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2026.1697921","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Thyroidectomy involves the removal of part or all of the thyroid gland, commonly performed for goiters, hyperthyroidism, or carcinomas, with 450,000-500,000 procedures performed annually in the United States. General anesthesia is traditionally used, providing optimal surgical conditions but associated with risks such as cardiovascular complications and longer hospital stays. Local anesthesia is gaining interest for high-risk patients, offering potentially similar outcomes to general anesthesia, while reducing postoperative complications and costs. The choice of anesthetic technique impacts patient safety, healthcare costs, and overall experience, yet no meta-analysis has previously compared local and general anesthesia for thyroidectomy.

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare surgical and perioperative outcomes of general anesthesia vs. local anesthesia in thyroidectomy, focusing on operative time, complications, cost, and postoperative recovery, to inform clinical practice.

Methods: This review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed from database inception to August 2025. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing local infiltration anesthesia with general anesthesia in patients with thyroidectomy. Key outcomes included operative time, intraoperative and postoperative complications, hospital stay length, pain scores, patient satisfaction, and cost. Data were extracted independently by two authors. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool for randomized trials and the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool for non-randomized studies. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), calculating mean differences and risk ratios under a random-effects model, with heterogeneity assessed using the I 2 statistic. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results: The systematic search identified 1,785 studies, of which 252 duplicates were removed. After screening, 1,508 studies were excluded, leading to a full-text review of 25 studies and ultimate inclusion of 5 studies comprising 508 patients undergoing thyroid surgery with either local or general anesthesia. Local anesthesia was associated with a shorter operative time than general anesthesia (mean difference -18.32 min, 95% CI: -27.31 to -9.15), but heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 95%), and the effect was significant only in cohort studies and not in randomized trials, and therefore, this finding should be interpreted with caution. No significant differences were observed between groups in nerve injury or respiratory distress, although evidence certainty for these outcomes was low. A cost analysis suggested that local anesthesia was less expensive than general anesthesia across all studies reporting cost data. Patient satisfaction appeared comparably high in both groups across the studies that assessed this factor.

Conclusion: Local anesthesia was associated with shorter operative times, lower costs, and shorter hospital stays compared with general anesthesia in thyroidectomy. However, these findings are drawn from a small number of studies and therefore should be interpreted cautiously. General anesthesia also likely remains necessary for more advanced procedures requiring airway control and complete patient immobility.

局部浸润麻醉(前野阻滞)与全麻甲状腺切除术:对手术时间、并发症和成本的影响——grade评价的系统评价和亚组分析的荟萃分析。
简介:甲状腺切除术包括切除部分或全部甲状腺,通常用于治疗甲状腺肿大、甲状腺功能亢进或癌,在美国每年有45万至50万例手术。传统上使用全身麻醉,提供最佳的手术条件,但与心血管并发症和较长的住院时间等风险相关。局部麻醉对高危患者越来越有吸引力,它提供了与全身麻醉相似的潜在结果,同时减少了术后并发症和费用。麻醉技术的选择会影响患者的安全、医疗成本和整体经验,但此前没有荟萃分析比较甲状腺切除术的局部麻醉和全身麻醉。目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较全麻和局麻在甲状腺切除术中的手术和围手术期结果,重点关注手术时间、并发症、成本和术后恢复,为临床实践提供信息。方法:本综述按照系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行。系统检索PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和Scopus数据库,从数据库建立到2025年8月。我们纳入了随机对照试验、队列研究和病例对照研究,比较局部浸润麻醉和全身麻醉对甲状腺切除术患者的影响。主要结局包括手术时间、术中和术后并发症、住院时间、疼痛评分、患者满意度和费用。数据由两位作者独立提取。使用随机试验的Cochrane风险偏倚2 (RoB 2)工具和非随机研究的干预措施的非随机研究的偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。使用建议分级评估、发展和评估框架评估证据的确定性。使用Review Manager (RevMan)进行统计分析,计算随机效应模型下的平均差异和风险比,并使用i2统计量评估异质性。结果:系统检索确定了1785项研究,其中252项重复被删除。筛选后,1508项研究被排除,最终纳入了25项研究的全文综述,最终纳入了5项研究,其中包括508名接受局部或全身麻醉甲状腺手术的患者。局麻比全麻的手术时间更短(平均差值为-18.32 min, 95% CI: -27.31 ~ -9.15),但异质性较高(i2 = 95%),且仅在队列研究中效果显著,而在随机试验中效果不显著,因此,应谨慎解释这一发现。尽管这些结果的证据确定性较低,但两组之间在神经损伤或呼吸窘迫方面未观察到显著差异。成本分析表明,在所有报告成本数据的研究中,局部麻醉比全身麻醉更便宜。在评估这一因素的研究中,两组患者的满意度都相当高。结论:与全麻相比,局麻在甲状腺切除术中具有更短的手术时间、更低的费用和更短的住院时间。然而,这些发现来自少数研究,因此应谨慎解释。对于需要气道控制和患者完全不活动的更高级的手术,全身麻醉可能仍然是必要的。
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
Frontiers in Surgery
Frontiers in Surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
1872
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles. Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery. Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact. The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书