COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
RESEARCH SUPPORT, U.S. GOV'T, NON-P.H.S.
REVIEW
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic vs conventional thyroidectomy approaches for thyroid disease.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared postoperative technical, quality-of-life, and cost outcomes following either robotic or open thyroidectomy for thyroid nodules and cancer.

DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

REVIEW METHODS: We examined relevant controlled trials, comparative effectiveness studies, and cohort studies for eligible publications. We calculated the pooled relative risk for key postoperative complications, mean differences for operative time, and standardized mean differences for length of stay (LOS) using random effects models. Quality-of-life outcomes were summarized in narrative form.

RESULTS: The meta-analysis comprised 11 studies with 726 patients undergoing robotic transaxillary or axillo-breast thyroidectomy and 1205 undergoing open thyroidectomy. There were no eligible cost-related studies. Mean operative time for robotic thyroidectomy exceeded open thyroidectomy by 76.7 minutes, while no significant difference in LOS was identified. There were no significant differences in hematoma, seroma, recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, hypocalcemia, or chyle leak rates. The systematic review included 12 studies. Voice, swallowing, pain, and paresthesia outcomes showed no significant differences between the 2 approaches. The robotic cohort reported higher cosmetic satisfaction scores, although follow-up periods did not exceed 3 months and no validated questionnaires were used.

CONCLUSIONS: Transaxillary and axillo-breast robotic and open thyroidectomy demonstrate similar complication rates, but robotic approaches may introduce the risk of new complications and require longer operative times. Robotic thyroidectomy appears to improve cosmetic outcomes, although longer follow-up periods and use of validated instruments are needed to more rigorously examine this effect.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app