Better Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Thyroidectomy than Conventional Thyroidectomy

Objective: Minimally invasive thyroidectomy is a relatively new technique used in selected patients with success. Aim of this study was to evaluate our results from conventional and minimally invasive thyroidectomy and compare their outcomes. Materials and Methods: 137 patients undergone conventional and minimally invasive thyroidectomy (video-assisted and open technique with mini-cervicotomy) were reviewed. Demographic data, blood loss, operative time, postoperative pain, cosmetic outcome and complications were examined and compared. Results: Minimally invasive group consists of 53 cases (39%) and conventional group is composed of 84 cases (61%). No conversion from minimally invasive to conventional techniques was observed. In minimally invasive group, 25 patients (47%) had differentiated thyroid carcinoma and 28 patients (53%) had benign pathologies. Postoperative complications include transient hypocalcemia in 5 patients (3.6%) (4 in conventional, 1 in minimally invasive group), permanent hypocalcemia in 4 patients (3%) (3 in conventional, 1 in minimally invasive group), unilateral vocal cord paralysis in 2 patients (2%) (1 in conventional, 1 in minimally invasive group). Operative time was similar in both groups; however, blood loss during surgery, postoperative pain was significantly lower in minimally invasive group. Conclusion: Minimally invasive techniques could be implemented on selected carcinoma patients and results in equal safety and less surgical morbidity.

Kaynakça

[1]Miccoli P, Berti P, Conte M, et al. Minimally invasive surgery for thyroid small nodules: preliminary report. J Endocrinol Invest 1999; 22(11): 849-51.

[2]Miccoli P, Berti P, Raffaelli M, et al. Comparison between minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and conventional thyroidectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surgery 2001; 130(6): 1039-43.

[3]Lombardi CP, Raffaelli M, Princi P, et al. Video-assisted thyroidectomy: report of a 7-year experience in Rome. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2006; 391(3): 174-77.

[4]Terris DJ, Seybt MW, Elchoufi M, et al. Cosmetic thyroid surgery: defining the essential principles. Laryngoscope 2007; 117(7): 1168-72.

[5]Terris DJ, Angelos P, Steward DL, et al. Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy: a multi-institutional North American experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2008; 134(1): 81-84.

[6]Henry JF. Minimally invasive thyroid and parathyroid surgery is not a question of length of the incision. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008; 393(5): 621-26.

[7]Terris DJ and Seybt MW. Classification system for minimally invasive thyroid surgery. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2008; 70(5): 287-291.

[8]Linos D. Minimally invasive thyroidectomy: a comprehensive appraisal of existing techniques. Surgery 2011; 150(1): 17-24.

[9]Pons Y, Verillaud B, Blancal JP, et al. Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy: Learning curve in terms of mean operative time and conversion and complication rates. Head Neck 2013; 35(8): 1078-82.

[10]Chiesa F. The 100 years Anniversary of the Nobel Prize Award winner Emil Theodor Kocher, a brilliant far-sighted surgeon. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2009; 29(6): 289.

[11]Billroth T. Die allgemeine chirurgische Pathologie und Therapie. 1871: Reimer.

[12]Bellantone R, Lombardi CP, Bossola M, et al. Video-assisted vs conventional thyroid lobectomy: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 2002; 137(3): 301-304; discussion 305.

[13]Terris DJ and Chin E. Clinical implementation of endoscopic thyroidectomy in selected patients. Laryngoscope 2006; 116(10): 1745-48.

[14]Scerrino G, et al., Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted Thyroidectomy: Analysis of Complications From a Systematic Review. Surg Innov 2019; 26(3): 381-87.

[15]Chao TC, Lin JD, and Chen MF. Video-assisted open thyroid lobectomy through a small incision. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2004; 14(1): 15-19.

[16]El-Labban GM. Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy versus conventional thyroidectomy: A single-blinded, randomized controlled clinical trial. J Minim Access Surg 2009; 5(4): 97-102.

[17]Lombardi CP, Raffaelli M, Princi P, et al. Safety of video-assisted thyroidectomy versus conventional surgery. Head Neck 2005; 27(1): 58-64.

[18]Miccoli P, Rago R, Massi M, et al. Standard versus video-assisted thyroidectomy: objective postoperative pain evaluation. Surg Endosc 2010; 24(10): 2415-17.

Kaynak Göster

63 31

Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Pain Management of Multiple Rib Fractures based on Early Reduction and Fixation in Patients without Intensive Care Unit

İsmail AĞABABAOĞLU, ÖZGÜR ÖMER YILDIZ, Filiz Banu ÇETİNKAYA ETHEMOGLU, Yavuz Selim SANİOĞLU

Pretibial Edema Strain Ratio Obtained by Elastography Can Be Used in Differential Diagnosis of Patients with Chronic Heart Failure and Nephrotic Syndrome

DERYA DEMİRTAŞ, Burçak ÇAKIR PEKÖZ, Mehmet KÜÇÜKOSMANOĞLU

Mid-Term Outcomes of Percutaneous Treatment of Superficial Femoral Artery Total Occlusions: Single Center Experience

AHMET HAKAN ATEŞ, AYSU BAŞAK ÖZBALCI, Selim KUL, Mustafa YENERÇAĞ, Metin OKŞUL, UĞUR ARSLAN

Pathways and Inborn Errors of Bile Acid Synthesis

UFUK BOZKURT OBUZ, İNCİLAY LAY

The Difference in Clinical and Prognostic Features Between De Novo and Recurrent Her2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients

Yusuf ACIKGOZ, Yakup ERGÜN, Gökhan UÇAR, Merve DİRİKOÇ, Doğan UNCU

Biliary Atresia Splenic Malformation Syndrome: A Single Center Experience

Önder ÖZDEN, Şeref Selçuk KILIÇ, Murat ALKAN, Gökhan TÜMGÖR, Recep TUNCER

Better Outcomes with Minimally Invasive Thyroidectomy than Conventional Thyroidectomy

Nilda SÜTAY SÜSLÜ, Çağrı KÜLEKÇİ, Selçuk DAĞDELEN, Nafiye YILDIZ, AYŞE TOMRİS ERBAŞ

Evaluation of cancer related missense mutations in CENPH

CEREN SUCULARLI

Infant Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia with Atypical Presentation

İnci YAMAN BAJİN, Yılmaz YILDIZ, Şenol AKIN, Selin AYTAÇ, Şule ÜNAL, Barış KUŞKONMAZ, Mualla ÇETİN, Serap SİVRİ, FATMA GÜMRÜK