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

Safety of robotic thyroidectomy approaches: meta-analysis and systematic review.

Head & Neck 2014 January
BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy of robotic thyroidectomy via a gasless, axillary approach with conventional cervical and endoscopic techniques by meta-analysis.

METHODS: Articles were identified from the following keyword searches: robotic/robot-assisted thyroidectomy/thyroid surgery. Outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, complications, and cosmetic satisfaction after surgery. Between-group outcome differences were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS: In all, 87 publications were identified and 9 studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 2881 patients, 1122 of whom underwent robotic thyroidectomy. Those who underwent robotic surgery reported greater cosmetic satisfaction, with a pooled net mean difference of -1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.69, -1.09). Robotic approach operative time was longer than that of the conventional approach (95% CI: 29.23, 54.87), with a trend to be shorter than the endoscopic approaches. Robotic surgery had similar risks to open and endoscopic approaches.

CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that robotic thyroidectomy is as safe, feasible, and efficacious as conventional cervical and endoscopic thyroidectomy, showing superior cosmetic satisfaction than that of conventional thyroidectomy.

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