Mini-invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy vs robot-assisted transaxillary thryoidectomy: analisys and comparison of safety and outcomes

Bonati, Elena
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-023-01732-z
2024-01-11
Updates in Surgery
Abstract:Thyroid surgery is characterized by large volumes and typically affects a young female population. Mini-invasive or remote access surgical techniques are born driven by the desire to improve aesthetic outcomes of the traditional technique, following technological advances that have upset the surgical world in the last 20 years. In our multicenter, retrospective observational study, we first compared an endoscopic technique with a robotic one: minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) and robot-assisted transaxillary thyroidectomy (RATT). We evaluated intraoperative features, complications, and cosmetic outcomes in a cohort of 609 patients. The efficacy and safety of these techniques are proven by a large literature and the comparison made in our study does not show inferiority of one technique compared to the other. Even the aesthetic results tend to be equal in the long term. It is desirable that further prospective and randomized studies are conducted to evaluate the outcomes of these procedures and the cost–benefit ratio.
surgery
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
This paper aims to compare the safety, efficacy, and aesthetic outcomes of two minimally invasive thyroid surgery techniques—Minimally Invasive Video-Assisted Thyroidectomy (MIVAT) and Robot-Assisted Transaxillary Thyroidectomy (RATT). ### Research Background Thyroid diseases often affect young women, who are particularly concerned about the appearance of neck scars. With technological advancements, various minimally invasive or remote surgical techniques have emerged to improve the aesthetic outcomes of traditional surgeries. This paper focuses on a comparative analysis between MIVAT and RATT techniques. ### Main Research Content - **Sample Selection**: The study included a total of 609 patients, with 385 undergoing RATT and 224 undergoing MIVAT. - **Surgery Time**: The average total time for RATT was 113.91 minutes, while for MIVAT it was 50.93 minutes. However, when comparing only the time for dissection and gland removal, the difference was not significant (p = 0.236). - **Gender and Age**: There were no significant differences in gender and age between the two groups. - **Surgical Indications**: These included differentiated thyroid cancer, nodules with uncertain fine-needle aspiration cytology results, and nodules with a maximum diameter of less than 5 cm. - **Postoperative Complications**: There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of hypocalcemia and hoarseness, but the MIVAT group had significantly higher rates of neck sensory abnormalities compared to the RATT group. - **Hospital Stay**: The hospital stay was significantly longer for the RATT group compared to the MIVAT group. - **Pain Scores**: Patients in the RATT group reported significantly higher pain on the first postoperative day compared to the MIVAT group. - **Aesthetic Evaluation**: Using the Vancouver Scar Scale, it was found that the axillary scars in the RATT group were closer to skin color compared to the neck scars in the MIVAT group, but the neck scars were flatter. ### Discussion Reanalysis after propensity score matching yielded the same results, further confirming the similarities and differences between these two techniques in certain aspects. Overall, while RATT has an advantage in avoiding neck scars, it is slightly inferior to MIVAT in terms of surgery time and postoperative pain. Additionally, the complication rates are similar, but the hospital stay is longer for the RATT group. More prospective randomized controlled studies are needed in the future to further evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these surgical methods.