World Journal of Endocrine Surgery

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Minimally Invasive Video-assisted Thyroidectomy vs Conventional Open Hemithyroidectomy in Asian Patients

Reyaz M Singaporewalla, Anil D Rao, Arunesh Majumder

Citation Information : Singaporewalla RM, Rao AD, Majumder A. Minimally Invasive Video-assisted Thyroidectomy vs Conventional Open Hemithyroidectomy in Asian Patients. World J Endoc Surg 2016; 8 (3):189-192.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10002-1189

Published Online: 01-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

Although the technique of minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) is well established in continental Europe, data on it's role in Asian patients is limited. We compared the results of MIVAT with conventional open hemithyroidectomy in Asian patients.

Materials and methods

Over a 1-year period, patients undergoing hemithyroidectomy for benign symptomatic goiters were selected. Inclusion criteria for MIVAT were benign colloid goiters, recurrent cysts or follicular lesions and neoplasms with lobe volume of less than 40 cc or nodule diameter less than 35 mm. Larger goiters underwent conventional open surgery. Patients with previous neck surgery and proven malignancy were excluded. Operative time, complications, postoperative pain score, incision length and cosmetic satisfaction at 6 months were recorded.

Results

Thirty-six patients (MIVAT-21, Conventional-15) were included. Both groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and co-morbidities. The mean operating time for both groups showed no significant difference (MIVAT = 111.67 ± 19.4 min, Conventional = 112.40 ± 25.06 min; p = 0.925). Minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy patients had significantly less pain in the immediate postoperative period (mean pain score 2.38 vs 4.8, p < 0.001). Mean incision length at end of surgery was significantly smaller in the MIVAT group (2.58 vs 6.3 cm; p < 0.001). Neck scar satisfaction at 6 months was excellent in 71.4% of MIVAT cases vs 26.6% of conventional hemithyroidectomy cases. There were no complications in any of the treatment groups.

Conclusion

In selected cases, MIVAT is as safe as conventional open surgery with distinct advantages of better postoperative pain control and cosmesis.

How to cite this article

Rao AD, Singaporewalla RM, Majumder A. Minimally Invasive Video-assisted Thyroidectomy vs Conventional Open Hemithyroidectomy in Asian Patients. World J Endoc Surg 2016;8(3):189-192.


PDF Share
  1. Minimally invasive surgery for thyroid small nodules: preliminary report. J. Endocrinol Invest 1999 Dec;22(11):849-851.
  2. Meta-analysis of comparison between minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and conventional thyroidectomy. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015 Apr;19(8):1381-1387.
  3. Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy: establishment in a thyroid center. Chirurg 2014 Mar;85(3):246-252.
  4. Operative time and postoperative pain following minimally invasive video-assisted parathyroidectomy. G Chir 2010 Apr;31(4):155-158.
  5. Comparison between minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and conventional thyroidectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surgery 2001 Dec;130(6):1039-1043.
  6. Volumetric analysis of thyroid lobes by real-time ultrasound. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1981 Oct;106(41):1338-1340.
  7. The perception of scar cosmesis following thyroid and parathyroid surgery: a prospective cohort study. Int J Surg 2016 Jan;25:38-43.
  8. Minimally invasive videoassisted thyroidectomy: an analysis of results and a revision of indications. Surg Endosc 2012 Mar;26(3):818-822.
  9. Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy: ascending the learning curve. J Minim Access Surg 2015 Apr-Jun;11(2):119-122.
  10. Minimally invasive thyroidectomy using the Sofferman technique. Laryngoscope 2005 Jun;115(6):1104-1108.
  11. Minimally invasive thyroidectomy using the Sofferman technique. Laryngoscope 2006 Sep;116(9):1719.
  12. Minimally invasive video-assisted versus conventional open thyroidectomy: a systematic review of available data. Surg Today 2012 Sep;42(9):848-856.
  13. Systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials comparing minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) and conventional thyroidectomy. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2013 Dec;398(8):1057-1068.
  14. Minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy. Laryngoscope 2008 May;118(5):786-789.
  15. A camera handler for Miccoli's minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy procedures. Surg Endosc 2007 Jun;21(6):1017-1019.
  16. The eligibility of MIVA approach in thyroid surgery. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2007 Jul;392(4):413-416.
  17. Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy for papillary thyroid cancer: a prospective 5-year follow-up study. Tumori 2015 Mar-Apr;101(2):144-1447.
  18. Minimally-invasive endoscopicallyassisted neck dissection for lateral cervical metastases of thyroid papillary carcinoma. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2014 Nov;52(9):793-797.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.