| Literature DB >> 35117643 |
Lin-Long Mo1, Fan-Lun Meng1, Zi-Quan Yang1, Ling-Mi Hou2, Fang Fang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET) has been widely accepted as a surgical option for benign thyroid lesions, yet remains controversial in the treatment of malignant thyroid because of concerns with the safety and efficacies. This paper aims at systematically evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of ET in malignant thyroid tumors through meta-analyses.Entities:
Keywords: Conventional open thyroidectomy (COT); endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET); meta-analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 35117643 PMCID: PMC8798475 DOI: 10.21037/tcr.2020.02.29
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-676X Impact factor: 1.241
Figure 1Flowchart of study selection.
Baseline characteristics of patients and study design in the included studies
| First author | Year | Sample size | Median age [range] year | Sex (male/female) | Patient source | Research design |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yi-Chao Wang | 2015 | 442 | ET: 36.1±9.7; COT: 40.8±9.0 | ET: 13/211; COT: 20/198 | West China Hospital of Sichuan University | Prospective randomized controlled trial |
| Rui Qu | 2018 | 76 | ET: 6.7±10.0; COT: 43.2±14.3 | ET: 9/31; COT: 14/22 | First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University | Prospective randomized controlled trial |
| Yoon Woo Koh | 2009 | 59 | ET: 36.5±5.1; COT: 38.3±4.5 | ET: 3/26; COT: 6/24 | Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine | Prospective randomized controlled trial |
| Ki Nam Park | 2015 | 152 | ET: 38.0±9.4; COT: 50.8±11.5 | ET: 4/46; COT: 14/88 | SoonChunHyang University College of Medicine | Prospective randomized controlled trial |
| Hayemin Lee | 2012 | 78 | ET: 42.3±7.6; COT: 49.0±10.8 | ET: 0/37; COT: 3/38 | Bucheon St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea | Prospective randomized controlled trial |
| Doh Young Lee | 2015 | 280 | ET: 25.9±7.4; COT: 24.9±7.3 | ET: 12/64; COT: 37/167 | Korea University College of Medicine | Prospective randomized controlled trial |
| Seon Kwang Kim | 2015 | 1,003 | ET: 38.9 [17–57]; COT: 49.53 [17–84] | ET: 13/173; COT: 96/830 | Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Chonbuk National University-Biomedical Research Institute of Chonbuk National University Hospital | Retrospective review |
| Eun Young Kim | 2017 | 738 | ET: 39.5±0.8; COT: 48.9±0.5 | ET: 8/192; COT: 138/400 | Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine | Retrospective review |
| Jong Ju Jeong | 2009 | 499 | ET: 39.6±8.8; COT: 49.5±10.2 | ET: 7/268; COT: 35/189 | Yonsei University College of Medicine | Retrospective review |
| Kyung Tae | 2011 | 88 | ET: 36.2±9.9; COT: 44.6±11.8 | ET: 1/30; COT: 11/25 | College of Medicine, Hanyang Universitye | Retrospective review |
| Weili Gao | 2013 | 67 | ET: 38.94±11.58; COT: 40.79±11.14 | ET: 8/27; COT: 7/26 | Huzhou Central Hospital, Zhejiang | Retrospective review |
ET, endoscopic thyroidectomy; COT, conventional open thyroidectomy.
The characteristics of tumor and 0 in the included studies
| First author | Year | Tumor size (cm) | Extrathyroidal invasion (+/total) | Lymph node metastases (+/total) | Surgical procedures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yi-Chao Wang | 2015 | – | – | – | Ipsilateral total and contralateral partial thyroidectomy; unilateral lobectomy; subtotal thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy |
| Rui Qu | 2018 | ET: 1.88±0.61; COT: 2.16±0.63 | – | ET: 11/40; COT: 13/36 | Total thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy + CLND |
| Yoon Woo Koh | 2009 | ET: 0.72± 0.24; COT: 0.71± 0.27 | ET: 4/29; COT: 12/30 | ET: 10/29; COT: 12/30 | Total thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy + CLND |
| Ki Nam Park | 2015 | ET: 0.80±0.37; COT: 0.76±0.19 | ET: 28/50; COT: 70/102 | – | Total thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy + CLND |
| Hayemin Lee | 2012 | ET: 0.5±0.231; COT: 0.41±0.264 | ET: 4/37; COT: 6/41 | ET: 5/37; COT: 1/41 | Lobectomy and isthmectomy + CLND |
| Doh Young Lee | 2015 | ET: 0.8±0.5; COT: 0.8 ±0.5 | ET: 34/76; COT: 89/204 | – | Total thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy + CLND |
| Seon Kwang Kim | 2015 | – | ET: 4/173; COT: 127/830 | ET: 34/1733; COT: 312/830 | Lobectomy; subtotal thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy + CLND |
| Eun Young Kim | 2017 | ET: 1.03±0.04; COT: 0.93±0.02 | ET: 111/200; COT: 374/538 | ET: 92/200; COT: 279/538 | Total thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy + CLND |
| Jong Ju Jeong | 2009 | ET: 0.56±0.19; COT: 0.60±0.22 | ET: 88/275; COT: 91/224 | ET: 62/275; COT: 74/224 | Total thyroidectomy; total thyroidectomy + CLND |
| Kyung Tae | 2011 | ET: 0.76±0.49; COT: 0.64±0.23 | ET: 2/31; COT: 1/36 | ET: 4/16; COT: 2/12 | Total thyroidectomy + CCND |
| Weili Gao | 2013 | ET: 0.77±0.21; COT: 0.76±0.20 | ET: 2/35; COT: 2/33 | ET: 16/35; COT: 16/33 | Lobectomy and isthmectomy + CCND; total thyroidectomy + CCND |
ET, endoscopic thyroidectomy; COT, conventional open thyroidectomy; CLND, central lymph node dissection.
Figure 2Forest plot for comparison of transient recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy between two groups.
Figure 3Forest plot for comparison of permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy between two groups.
Figure 4Forest plot for comparison of transient hypocalcemia between two groups.
Figure 5Forest plot for comparison of permanent hypocalcemia between two groups.
Figure 6Forest plot for comparison of hematoma between two groups.
Figure 7Forest plot for comparison of blooding between two groups.
Figure 8Forest plot for comparison of overall complications between two groups.
Figure 9Forest plot for comparison of postoperative recurrence between two groups.
Figure 10Forest plot for comparison of operation time between two groups.
Figure 11Forest plot for comparison of postoperative hospital stay between two groups.
Figure 12Forest plot for comparison of cosmetic results between two groups.