Reoperative thyroid surgery: can endoscopic areola approach be used?

Comparison of the endoscopic thyroidectomy via areola approach and open thyroidectomy: A propensity score matched cohort study of 302 patients in the treatment of papillary thyroid non-microcarcinoma

Background

The endoscopic thyroidectomy via areola approach (ETAA) is widely used in patients with benign thyroid tumors and papillary thyroid microcarcinoma (PTMC). Its safety and complication rates are reported to be similar to open thyroidectomy (OT). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ETAA, compared with OT, in patients with papillary thyroid non-microcarcinoma (PTNMC).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients with PTNMC who underwent ETAA or OT in our hospital from January 2017 to December 2021. A total of 302 patients were matched at a ratio of 1:1 by the propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and surgical outcomes. Safety and feasibility were analyzed between two groups.

Results

Before PSM, patients in the ETAA group were younger (p < 0.001) and had a larger proportion of female patients (p < 0.001) with a lower BMI (p < 0.001) compared with the OT group. The ETAA group also had a higher proportion of unilateral thyroidectomy (p = 0.002). PSM was used to create a highly comparable control group. After PSM, the ETAA group had a longer operative time (p < 0.001), larger blood loss (p = 0.046) and total drainage amount (p = 0.035), with higher C-reactive protein (p = 0.023) and better cosmetic outcomes (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the following clinicopathologic characteristics: number of dissected positive lymph nodes, rate of recurrent laryngeal nerve signal weakened, parathyroid autotransplantation, postoperative pain, hospital stay, complications, and oncologic completeness. There was no patient converted to OT in the ETAA group and two patients suffered from persistence/recurrence in the follow-up.

Conclusion

ETAA is a safe and feasible surgical approach for patients with PTNMC.

Pros and Cons of Transoral Endoscopic Thyroidectomy Via Vestibular Approach: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to explore the feasibility and safety of transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOETVA) compared with endoscopic thyroidectomy via bilateral areola approach (ETBAA) in the treatment of patients with benign thyroid nodules.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2017 to December 2018, 60 patients who received TOETVA were enrolled as the research group; 65 patients who underwent ETBAA were included as the control group. A retrospective study was performed using the clinical data for these cases. All patients were diagnosed with benign nodules by preoperative examinations. Parameters including surgical trauma, complications, cosmetic satisfaction, and postoperative discomfort were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

All operations were completed without incident. There were significant differences in operation time (137.8±18.7 vs. 95.7±17.2 min), intraoperative blood loss (16.8±9.1 vs. 24.6±16.6 mL), drainage volume (123.1±20.9 vs. 153.6±40.2 mL), C-reactive protein level (7.2±5.2 vs. 9.0±4.7 mg/L), drainage time (3.2±0.6 vs. 3.9±1.3 d), postoperative hospital stay (3.3±0.8 vs. 4.1±1.5 d), and sense of skin tension on the neck (0% vs. 10.8%) between the TOETVA and ETBAA groups (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in pain score, incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, transient hypoparathyroidism, infection, inadvertent parathyroidectomy, or swallow discomfort between the 2 groups. The cosmetic satisfaction score in the TOETVA group was significantly higher than that in the ETBAA group at 1 month after surgery (9.8±0.5 vs. 9.4±0.9, P<0.05), but at 3 months after the operation, the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

TOETVA was accompanied by less surgical trauma and skin tension on the neck than ETBAA, and the cosmetic effect of this approach was better than that of ETBAA in the early postoperative period. TOETVA for benign thyroid nodules is safe and feasible. However, there are disadvantages with TOETVA, such as a long surgical period. More cases and further research are needed to delve further into this approach.

Technique for endoscopic thyroidectomy with selective lateral neck dissection via a chest-breast approach

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic thyroidectomy has been widely accepted because it can effectively avoid neck scarring. However, there are seldom reports concerning completely endoscopic lateral neck dissection approaches. In this study, we introduced a technique for performing endoscopic thyroidectomy with lateral neck dissection via a chest-breast approach.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 18 patients who underwent endoscopic total thyroidectomy along with levels II, III, IV, and VI dissection. All major outcomes, such as cosmetic effect, operative time and complications, etc., were analyzed. In addition, another 20 patients who underwent traditional open surgery (open group) were enrolled in the study to conduct a contrasting analysis between patients treated with the endoscopic technique (endoscopic group) and open group patients, in terms of demographic data and main operative outcomes, to evaluate the feasibility of this technique.

RESULTS

All 18 endoscopic surgery cases were successfully performed, and no patient was converted to the open procedure intra-operatively. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding age (P = 0.209), Body Mass Index (P = 0.479), sex (P = 0.218), drainage time (P = 0.153), operation time (P = 0.065), intra-operative blood loss (P = 0.139), post-operative pain (P = 0.114), and number of dissected lateral lymph nodes (II: P = 0.201; III + IV: P = 0.107). The mean total and lateral lymph nodes dissection (LLND) time in the endoscopic group were longer than those of the open group (P = 0.002; 235 ± 35 vs. 182 ± 20 min, P = 0.000; 125 ± 21 vs. 80 ± 14 min, P = 0.000). The primary lesion diameter of the endoscopic group was smaller than that of the open group (1.7 ± 0.8 vs. 2.9 ± 1.3 cm, P = 0.002). The scores for cosmetic satisfaction in the endoscopic group were higher than those in the open group (8.3 ± 0.7 vs. 4.4 ± 0.9, P = 0.000). Among the complications, there was no significant difference between the two approaches in transient vocal cord paresis (1/18 vs. 0/20, P = 0.474), transient hypoparathyroidism (4/18 vs. 4/20, P = 1.000), post-operative lymphatic leakage (1/18 vs. 3/20, P = 0.606), and intra-operative large blood vessel injury (2/18 vs. 0/20, P = 0.218). There was no incidence of uncontrolled bleeding, mental nerve injury, permanent hypoparathyroidism, permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury, skin bruise on the neck, asphyxia/dyspnea or other complications like tracheal injury, esophageal injury, etc., nor was there any death or recurrence in either of the two groups during the short follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible to perform LLND (levels II, III, IV, and VI) with endoscopic thyroidectomy via a chest-breast approach. In particular, this technique avoids a large scar on the patient's neck and has well operative outcomes compared with open surgery. Accordingly, this technique may offer one more option for selective patients.