Evidence Hub

A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing outcomes between robotic-assisted thyroidectomy and non-robotic endoscopic thyroidectomy

Lang BH, Wong CK, Tsang JS, Wong KP

The Journal of surgical research, 2014

3,510 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite its feasibility, using the da Vinci robot in remote-access thyroidectomy remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared surgical and oncological outcomes between robotic-assisted thyroidectomy (RT) and non-robotic endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET).

METHODS: A systematic review was performed to identify studies comparing outcomes between RT and ET. Outcomes included operating time, drain output, complications, number of central lymph nodes retrieved, and preablation stimulated thyroglobulin level. A random-effects model was used.

RESULTS: Six studies were eligible. Of the 3510 patients, 2167 (61.7%) underwent RT whereas 1343 (38.3%) underwent ET. Despite a higher drain output (185.8 mLs versus 173.3 mLs, P = 0.019), RT had fewer temporary recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (2.6% versus 3.3%, P = 0.035) and shorter length of hospital stay (3.4 d versus 3.5 d, P = 0.030). In terms of oncological outcomes, despite higher incidence of multicentricity and larger tumors, the number of central lymph nodes retrieved during unilateral central neck dissection in RT was significantly greater than ET (4.5 ± 2.6 and 3.4 ± 2.5, P < 0.001) whereas the preablation stimulated thyroglobulin was comparable (0.8 ng/mL versus 1.1 ng/mL, P = 0.456). However, follow-up data were relatively scarce.

CONCLUSIONS: Adding the robot in remote-access thyroidectomy was associated with a significantly lower risk of temporary recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and shorter length of hospital…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,510 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