| Literature DB >> 34620907 |
Hyeong Won Yu1, Dongheon Lee2, Keunchul Lee1, Su-Jin Kim3, Young Jun Chai4, Hee Chan Kim5, June Young Choi6, Kyu Eun Lee3.
Abstract
Many patients experience cervical adhesions after thyroid surgery. To date, however, no studies have objectively measured the effects of anti-adhesion agents on cervical adhesion symptoms. This study evaluated the effects of an anti-adhesion agent on cervical adhesions after thyroid surgery, as determined using a system that measures the extent of marker movement objectively. One hundred patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo thyroid surgery with or without the anti-adhesion agent Collabarrier. Using specially manufactured recording equipment, the position of the marker on neck skin was measured before surgery, and 2 weeks, 3 months, and 9 months after surgery. Relative change in marker distance, calculated by subtracting the marker position before surgery from the marker positions 2 weeks, 3 months, and 9 months after surgery, differed significantly in the groups of patients who underwent thyroid surgery with and without the anti-adhesion agent (P < 0.05). A novel measuring system can objectively evaluate the effectiveness of a thyroid anti-adhesion agent. The anti-adhesion agent used significantly reduced adhesions compared with the control group. The trial is registered at www.cris.nih.go.kr (KCT0005745; date of registration, 08/01/2021).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34620907 PMCID: PMC8497539 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-97919-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who underwent thyroidectomy with and without an anti-adhesion agent.
| With anti-adhesion agent (n = 44) | Without anti-adhesion agent (n = 44) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (M, %) | 15 (34.1%) | 17 (38.6%) | 0.5 |
| Age, year (mean ± SD) | 46.66 ± 9.12 | 49.93 ± 9.87 | 0.06 |
| 0.5 | |||
| Malignant | 39 | 41 | |
| Benign | 5 | 3 | |
| 0.5 | |||
| Total thyroidectomy | 14 | 9 | |
| Right thyroid lobectomy | 12 | 26 | |
| Left thyroid lobectomy | 18 | 9 | |
| Size of tumor, cm (mean ± SD) | 1.48 ± 1.11 | 1.48 ± 1.15 | 0.49 |
SD standard deviation.
Figure 1Image marker distances moved before surgery, and 2 weeks, 3 months, and 9 months after surgery in patients who underwent thyroidectomy (a) with and (b) without an anti-adhesion agent.
Image marker distance migrated in patients who underwent thyroidectomy with and without an anti-adhesion agent.
| With anti-adhesion agent (n = 44) | Without anti-adhesion agent (n = 44) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Before surgery | 3.92 ± 1.19 mm | 4.1 ± 1.38 mm | 0.512 |
| 2 weeks after surgery | 6.87 ± 2.07 mm | 6.14 ± 1.84 mm | 0.087 |
| 3 months after surgery | 5.71 ± 1.96 mm | 5.2 ± 1.65 mm | 0.189 |
| 9 months after surgery | 5.41 ± 2.04 mm | 4.69 ± 1.72 mm | 0.084 |
| 2 weeks after surgery | 2.96 ± 2.1 mm | 2.04 ± 1.85 mm | 0.035 |
| 3 months after surgery | 1.8 ± 1.52 mm | 1.1 ± 1.55 mm | 0.037 |
| 9 months after surgery | 1.45 ± 1.66 mm | 0.58 ± 1.5 mm | 0.013 |
Effects of sex, age, and height on the image marker distance in patients who underwent thyroidectomy with and without an anti-adhesion agent.
| Sex | Male | Female | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AA+ (n = 12) | AA− (n = 20) | P-value | AA+ (n = 29) | AA− (n = 27) | P-value | |
| Before surgery | 4.5 ± 1.12 mm | 4.83 ± 1.34 mm | 0.248 | 3.61 ± 1.11 mm | 3.6 ± 1.15 mm | 0.484 |
| 2 wk after surgery–Before surgery | 4.5 ± 1.12 mm | 4.83 ± 1.34 mm | 0.11 | 3.62 ± 1.11 mm | 3.602 ± 1.148 mm | 0.072 |
| 3 mo after surgery–Before surgery | 2.14 ± 1.03 mm | 1.28 ± 2 mm | 0.115 | 3.51 ± 2.22 mm | 2.471 ± 1.558 mm | 0.192 |
| 9 mo after surgery–Before surgery | 2.26 ± 1.8 mm | 0.7 ± 1.55 mm | 0.007 | 1.74 ± 1.36 mm | 1.321 ± 1.443 mm | 0.116 |
AA+ with anti-adhesion agent, AA– without anti-adhesion agent, wk weeks, mo months.
Figure 2Study protocol. (a) Flow chart of the randomized controlled trial. (b) Anti-adhesion agent experiment (video recording and questionnaire) in each group.
Figure 3Video recording of a patient. (a) Imaging equipment. (b) Guidance by the pre-recorded voice. (c) Design of the image markers in the recorded video.
Figure 4Entire process of determining and analyzing image marker movement. (a) Analysis of image marker movement. (b) Image processing technique for determining image marker movement.