Evidence Hub

Safety of robotic thyroidectomy approaches: meta-analysis and systematic review

Jackson NR, Yao L, Tufano RP, Kandil EH

Head & neck, 2014

2,881 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study compared the efficacy of robotic thyroidectomy via a gasless, axillary approach with conventional cervical and endoscopic techniques by meta-analysis.

METHODS: Articles were identified from the following keyword searches: robotic/robot-assisted thyroidectomy/thyroid surgery. Outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, complications, and cosmetic satisfaction after surgery. Between-group outcome differences were calculated using random-effects models.

RESULTS: In all, 87 publications were identified and 9 studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 2881 patients, 1122 of whom underwent robotic thyroidectomy. Those who underwent robotic surgery reported greater cosmetic satisfaction, with a pooled net mean difference of -1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.69, -1.09). Robotic approach operative time was longer than that of the conventional approach (95% CI: 29.23, 54.87), with a trend to be shorter than the endoscopic approaches. Robotic surgery had similar risks to open and endoscopic approaches.

CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that robotic thyroidectomy is as safe, feasible, and efficacious as conventional cervical and endoscopic thyroidectomy, showing superior cosmetic satisfaction than that of conventional thyroidectomy.

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: 2,881 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