Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes between robotic-assisted thyroidectomy and non-robotic endoscopic thyroidectomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite its feasibility, using the da Vinci robot in remote-access thyroidectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic-assisted thyroidectomy (RT) and non-robotic endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET).

METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing outcomes between RT and ET. Outcomes included operating time, drain output, complications, number of central lymph nodes retrieved, and preablation stimulated thyroglobulin level. A random-effects model was used.

RESULTS: Six studies were eligible. Of the 3510 patients, 2167 (61.7%) underwent RT whereas 1343 (38.3%) underwent ET. Despite a higher drain output (185.8 mLs versus 173.3 mLs, P = 0.019), RT had fewer temporary recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (2.6% versus 3.3%, P = 0.035) and shorter length of hospital stay (3.4 d versus 3.5 d, P = 0.030). In terms of oncological outcomes, despite higher incidence of multicentricity and larger tumors, the number of central lymph nodes retrieved during unilateral central neck dissection in RT was significantly greater than ET (4.5 ± 2.6 and 3.4 ± 2.5, P < 0.001) whereas the preablation stimulated thyroglobulin was comparable (0.8 ng/mL versus 1.1 ng/mL, P = 0.456). However, follow-up data were relatively scarce.

CONCLUSIONS: Adding the robot in remote-access thyroidectomy was associated with a significantly lower risk of temporary recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and shorter length of hospital stay. However, despite achieving a comparable level of surgical completeness for low-risk differentiated thyroid carcinoma between RT and ET, this study highlighted the limitations with the current literature and the need for more prospective studies with adequate follow-up.

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