Evidence Hub

Comparison of outcomes after differentiated thyroid cancer surgery performed with and without energy devices: a population-based cohort study using a nationwide database in Japan

T. Konishi, M. Fujiogi, T. Niwa, K. Morita, H. Matsui, K. Fushimi, M. Tanabe, Y. Seto et al.

International Journal of Surgery, 2020

59,394 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The benefits of using energy devices (EDs) such as ultrasonic coagulating shears or electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing devices for thyroid cancer surgery have been evaluated only with limited data obtained from small samples.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a Japanese national inpatient database, we identified 59,394 patients with thyroid cancer who underwent thyroidectomy without EDs (without-ED group, n = 32,360) and with EDs (with-ED group, n = 26,764) from July 2010 to March 2017. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to compare the occurrence of postoperative complications including recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis and chyle leakage, duration of anesthesia, length of stay, total costs, in-hospital mortality rate between the two groups. We also performed multivariate regression analyses using a generalized estimating equation and multiple imputation as a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched analysis involving 22,108 pairs, no significant differences were found in any postoperative complications (7.4% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.73), duration of anesthesia (217 min vs. 218 min, p = 0.54), length of stay (8.7 days vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.07) and in-hospital mortality rate (0.07% vs. 0.09%, p = 0.61). Compared with the without-ED group, the with-ED group showed a lower occurrence of postoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (2.3% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.01) but a higher occurrence of postoperative chyle leakage (0.3% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001) and…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 59,394 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free