Valeria Matteucci1, Dan Bai2, Lorenzo Fregoli1, Piermarco Papini1, Aleksandr Aghababyan1, Giovanni Docimo3, Paolo Miccoli1, Gabriele Materazzi4. 1. Endocrine Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Area, Pisa Hospital, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, Edificio 30 J, 56100, Pisa, Italy. 2. College of Clinical Medicine, Xi'an Medical University, Xi'an, China. 3. Department of Advanced Medical and Surgical Sciences, University L. Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy. 4. Endocrine Surgery Unit, Department of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Area, Pisa Hospital, University of Pisa, Via Paradisa 2, Edificio 30 J, 56100, Pisa, Italy. gabriele.materazzi@unipi.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cosmetic satisfaction is not only based on the patient's perception of the scar itself but is also related to body image self-evaluation. Cosmetic superiority of Robot-assisted transaxillary thyroidectomy (RATT) over conventional thyroidectomy (CT) has not yet been clearly demonstrated. Aim of our study was to compare body image in patients undergoing CT versus RATT. METHODS: The study included 160 (80 CT and 80 RATT) patients undergoing thyroidectomy between August 2014 and March 2018 at the Endocrine Surgery Department. The inclusion criteria were age 18 to < 60 years, female sex, thyroid volume < 30 mL, and nodule diameter < 5 cm. Scar length, operative time, and complications were analyzed. The body image questionnaire (BIQ) was used 3 months postoperatively. The Student t test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Age was lower in RATT group (38.2 vs 41.4 years) (P < 0.0001). The nodule diameter was larger in RATT group (27.1 vs 23.1 mm) (P = 0.028). Operative time was longer in RATT group (93.7 vs 47.6 min) (P < 0.0001). The scar was longer in RATT group (59.9 vs 37.7 mm) (P < 0.0001). The groups had similar complication rates. BIQ showed that RATT patients answered more favorably to question 2, "Do you feel the operation has damaged your body?" (P = 0.042) and to question 3, "Do you feel less attractive as a result of your treatment?" (P = 0.024). Also self-global satisfaction was better in RATT group (P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, RATT has a significantly better impact on body image than the conventional approach.
BACKGROUND: Cosmetic satisfaction is not only based on the patient's perception of the scar itself but is also related to body image self-evaluation. Cosmetic superiority of Robot-assisted transaxillary thyroidectomy (RATT) over conventional thyroidectomy (CT) has not yet been clearly demonstrated. Aim of our study was to compare body image in patients undergoing CT versus RATT. METHODS: The study included 160 (80 CT and 80 RATT) patients undergoing thyroidectomy between August 2014 and March 2018 at the Endocrine Surgery Department. The inclusion criteria were age 18 to < 60 years, female sex, thyroid volume < 30 mL, and nodule diameter < 5 cm. Scar length, operative time, and complications were analyzed. The body image questionnaire (BIQ) was used 3 months postoperatively. The Student t test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Age was lower in RATT group (38.2 vs 41.4 years) (P < 0.0001). The nodule diameter was larger in RATT group (27.1 vs 23.1 mm) (P = 0.028). Operative time was longer in RATT group (93.7 vs 47.6 min) (P < 0.0001). The scar was longer in RATT group (59.9 vs 37.7 mm) (P < 0.0001). The groups had similar complication rates. BIQ showed that RATT patients answered more favorably to question 2, "Do you feel the operation has damaged your body?" (P = 0.042) and to question 3, "Do you feel less attractive as a result of your treatment?" (P = 0.024). Also self-global satisfaction was better in RATT group (P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, RATT has a significantly better impact on body image than the conventional approach.
Authors: Sohail Bakkar; Gabriele Materazzi; Marco Biricotti; Luigi De Napoli; Massimo Conte; David Galleri; Aleksandr Aghababyan; Paolo Miccoli Journal: Surg Today Date: 2015-08-31 Impact factor: 2.549
Authors: Sang-Wook Kang; Seung Chul Lee; So Hee Lee; Kang Young Lee; Jong Ju Jeong; Yong Sang Lee; Kee-Hyun Nam; Hang Seok Chang; Woong Youn Chung; Cheong Soo Park Journal: Surgery Date: 2009-10-30 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Young Up Cho; Il Jae Park; Kyong-Ho Choi; Sei Joong Kim; Sun Keun Choi; Yoon Seok Hur; Keon-Young Lee; Seung-Ik Ahn; Kee-Chun Hong; Seok Hwan Shin; Kyung Rae Kim; Ze Hong Woo Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2007-06-30 Impact factor: 2.759