Se Hyun Paek1, Kyung Ho Kang2, Hyun Kang3, Sung Jun Park4. 1. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Mokdong Hospital, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital and Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 224-1, Heuk Seok-Dong, Dongjak-Ku, Seoul, 156-755, Republic of Korea. poplipss@hanmail.net. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital and Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Surgery, Chung-Ang University Hospital and Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, 224-1, Heuk Seok-Dong, Dongjak-Ku, Seoul, 156-755, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic thyroid surgery using the da Vinci surgical system has certain cosmetic advantages; however, the invasiveness of robotic thyroid surgery is still a concern to many surgeons. Previous research has not directly compared the surgical stress of robotic thyroidectomy with that of conventional open surgery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate surgical stress using postsurgical measurements of several clinical markers. METHODS: A pilot study was performed to evaluate surgical stress following robotic and open thyroid surgery. A total of 29 papillary thyroid cancer patients from July to November 2014 were enrolled. Fourteen patients underwent conventional open surgery, and fifteen underwent robotic thyroidectomy. IL-6 levels, serum WBC counts, CRP levels, surgical plethysmographic index (SPI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were measured to compare surgical stress between the robotic and the open surgery groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between the two groups in IL-6 level, WBC count or CRP level (p = 0.380, 0.374, 0.360, respectively). Mean SPI level during the surgery was 41.9 ± 4.7 in open group compared to 39.5 ± 2.2 in robotic group, though this finding showed borderline significance (p = 0.095). VAS score after open surgery was significantly higher than after robotic operation (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that robotic thyroidectomy can result in a less than equivocal systemic stress response than is seen in open thyroidectomy. However, further investigation including large-scale, prospective, multicenter studies is warranted for non-inferiority trials.
BACKGROUND: Robotic thyroid surgery using the da Vinci surgical system has certain cosmetic advantages; however, the invasiveness of robotic thyroid surgery is still a concern to many surgeons. Previous research has not directly compared the surgical stress of robotic thyroidectomy with that of conventional open surgery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate surgical stress using postsurgical measurements of several clinical markers. METHODS: A pilot study was performed to evaluate surgical stress following robotic and open thyroid surgery. A total of 29 papillary thyroid cancerpatients from July to November 2014 were enrolled. Fourteen patients underwent conventional open surgery, and fifteen underwent robotic thyroidectomy. IL-6 levels, serum WBC counts, CRP levels, surgical plethysmographic index (SPI), and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were measured to compare surgical stress between the robotic and the open surgery groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were seen between the two groups in IL-6 level, WBC count or CRP level (p = 0.380, 0.374, 0.360, respectively). Mean SPI level during the surgery was 41.9 ± 4.7 in open group compared to 39.5 ± 2.2 in robotic group, though this finding showed borderline significance (p = 0.095). VAS score after open surgery was significantly higher than after robotic operation (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that robotic thyroidectomy can result in a less than equivocal systemic stress response than is seen in open thyroidectomy. However, further investigation including large-scale, prospective, multicenter studies is warranted for non-inferiority trials.
Entities:
Keywords:
IL-6; Robotic thyroidectomy; SPI; Surgical stress; VAS
Authors: A G E M de Boer; J J B van Lanschot; P F M Stalmeier; J W van Sandick; J B F Hulscher; J C J M de Haes; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: C H Wortel; S J van Deventer; L A Aarden; N J Lygidakis; H R Büller; F J Hoek; J Horikx; J W ten Cate Journal: Surgery Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Briseis A Kilfoy; Tongzhang Zheng; Theodore R Holford; Xuesong Han; Mary H Ward; Andreas Sjodin; Yaqun Zhang; Yana Bai; Cairong Zhu; Grace L Guo; Nathaniel Rothman; Yawei Zhang Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2008-11-19 Impact factor: 2.506