Weiwei Liu1, Ming Zhou1. 1. Department of General Surgery, Shanghai Tongren Hospital , Shanghai, China .
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility, safety, and advantages of transareola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy. METHODS:From January 2014 to December 2015, 40 patients were randomly divided into an observation group who received single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy by the areola approach and a control group who underwent three-port endoscopic thyroidectomy by the areola approach with 20 patients in each group. The feasibility and safety of the operation and postoperative clinical outcomes were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization time (P > .05) between the two groups. The subcutaneous dissection area in the observation group (130 [120-130] cm2) was significantly smaller than that in the control group (180 [170-190] cm2) (P < .01). In addition, there is much less postoperative drainage in the observation group (70 [50-80] mL) than in the control group (80 [60-100] mL) (P = .036). Furthermore, 24-hour postoperative pain score in the observation group (4.0 [3.0-5.5]) was significantly lower compared with that in the control group (5.0 [4.0-7.0]) (P = .047). Moreover, patients in the observation group present with significantly higher 7-day postoperative cosmetic satisfaction scores (9.0 [8.0-9.0]) than those in the control group (7.0 [7.0-8.0]) (P < .001). CONCLUSION:Transareola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy exhibits superior advantages in clinical outcomes such as causing less pain and achieving better cosmetic satisfaction, compared with three-port endoscopic thyroidectomy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility, safety, and advantages of transareola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy. METHODS: From January 2014 to December 2015, 40 patients were randomly divided into an observation group who received single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy by the areola approach and a control group who underwent three-port endoscopic thyroidectomy by the areola approach with 20 patients in each group. The feasibility and safety of the operation and postoperative clinical outcomes were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and hospitalization time (P > .05) between the two groups. The subcutaneous dissection area in the observation group (130 [120-130] cm2) was significantly smaller than that in the control group (180 [170-190] cm2) (P < .01). In addition, there is much less postoperative drainage in the observation group (70 [50-80] mL) than in the control group (80 [60-100] mL) (P = .036). Furthermore, 24-hour postoperative pain score in the observation group (4.0 [3.0-5.5]) was significantly lower compared with that in the control group (5.0 [4.0-7.0]) (P = .047). Moreover, patients in the observation group present with significantly higher 7-day postoperative cosmetic satisfaction scores (9.0 [8.0-9.0]) than those in the control group (7.0 [7.0-8.0]) (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Transareola single-site endoscopic thyroidectomy exhibits superior advantages in clinical outcomes such as causing less pain and achieving better cosmetic satisfaction, compared with three-port endoscopic thyroidectomy.