Published in:
01-10-2012
Gasless transaxillary robotic versus endoscopic thyroidectomy: exploring the frontiers of scarless thyroidectomy through a preliminary comparison study
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 10/2012
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Robot-assisted thyroidectomy has been associated with lengthy operative times due to fussy robot preparation and docking maneuvers. The authors propose an endoscopic transaxillary approach using a novel platform, comparing its results with those of the former approach.
Methods
Eight patients (6 females and 2 males; mean age, 38.8 years) with a favorable body habitus (mean body mass index [BMI], 23.4 kg/m2) underwent robot-assisted thyroidectomy through a gasless transaxillary approach using the da Vinci S system. Another four female patients (mean age, 31 years) underwent an endoscopic procedure. The patients’ demographic data, operative time, complications, hospital stay, postoperative visual analog pain score (VAPS), and costs were compared.
Results
Three lobectomies, two near-total thyroidectomies, two total thyroidectomies, and one total thyroidectomy with lateral lymph node dissection were performed in the robotic group. Two lobectomies and two near total thyroidectomies were performed in the endoscopic group. The mean diameter of the largest nodule in the robotic series was 26.5 mm compared with 42.5 mm in the endoscopic group. The mean total operative time was 211 min for the robotic series compared with 160 min for the endoscopic series. There was one temporary recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis in the robotic group. Two patients in the robotic group exhibited transient symptomatic hypocalcemia compared with one patient in the endoscopic group. Hypoesthesia in the flap dissection area was experienced by three patients in the robotic group and two patients of the endoscopic group. The mean hospital stay was 1.5 days (range 1–3 days) in both groups. The postoperative VAPS also was similar in the two groups (3.1 vs 2.8). The cost was significantly less for the endoscopic approach.
Conclusions
The preliminary comparison in this study shows that both approaches are safe and feasible, with similar results. They also afford an excellent view of the critical neck anatomy that allows precise tissue handling and dissection. However, the endoscopic approach results in a significantly faster and more convenient thyroidectomy.