Kiong Kimberley Liqin, Iyer N Gopalakrishna, Skanthakumar Thakshayeni, Ng Jeremy Chung Fai, Tan Ngian Chye, Tay Hin Ngan, Tan Hiang Khoon
SingHealth, Singapore.
National Cancer Centre Singapore, SingHealth, Singapore.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 May;152(5):820-6. doi: 10.1177/0194599815573003. Epub 2015 Mar 31.
Robotic and endoscopic approaches have become more accepted in thyroid surgery, with current literature documenting the experience of high-volume centers. We adopted both approaches concurrently, and this series presents our initial experience to assess the more practical option for low- to moderate-volume centers starting out with transaxillary thyroidectomies.
Case series with chart review.
Tertiary academic center.
Over a period of 4 years, 101 patients underwent transaxillary thyroidectomies, of whom 48 underwent robotic thyroidectomy and 53 underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy. Data analysis includes patient characteristics, procedure time, thyroid pathology, and postoperative complications. A survey was conducted among surgeons to assess the subjective experience.
Endoscopic hemithyroidectomies had a significantly shorter duration of operation (145.8 minutes) vs that of robotic hemithyroidectomies (193.6 minutes), P < .001. The mean time taken for the first 5 hemithyroidectomies vs the last 5 hemithyroidectomies showed a greater drop in the endoscopic group (49.1%) vs the robotic group (18.6%). There were 2 cases of transient recurrent laryngeal nerve injury. In the surgeon survey, the endoscopic technique was perceived to have less need for peripheral support, while the robotic technique was preferred for its shorter learning curve.
In terms of outcome, both techniques are comparable at least in the initial phase. Based on our early experience, the endoscopic technique may be less intuitive with a longer learning curve, although at steady state, it may be the quicker procedure. This is relevant for low- to moderate-volume centers starting their transaxillary thyroidectomy program.
机器人手术和内镜手术在甲状腺手术中已越来越被接受,当前文献记录了大型中心的经验。我们同时采用了这两种方法,本系列展示了我们的初步经验,以评估对于开始进行经腋窝甲状腺切除术的低至中等手术量中心而言,哪种方法更具实用性。
病例系列研究并进行图表回顾。
三级学术中心。
在4年时间里,101例患者接受了经腋窝甲状腺切除术,其中48例行机器人甲状腺切除术,53例行内镜甲状腺切除术。数据分析包括患者特征、手术时间、甲状腺病理及术后并发症。对外科医生进行了一项调查以评估主观体验。
内镜下甲状腺半叶切除术的手术时间(145.8分钟)显著短于机器人辅助甲状腺半叶切除术(193.6分钟),P < 0.001。内镜组前5例甲状腺半叶切除术与后5例相比,手术时间下降幅度(49.1%)大于机器人组(18.6%)。有2例出现暂时性喉返神经损伤。在外科医生调查中,内镜技术被认为对外围支持的需求较少,而机器人技术因其学习曲线较短而更受青睐。
就手术结果而言,至少在初始阶段,两种技术相当。基于我们的早期经验,内镜技术可能不太直观,学习曲线较长,尽管在稳定状态下,它可能是更快的手术方式。这对于开始经腋窝甲状腺切除术项目的低至中等手术量中心具有重要意义。