Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24800227›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2014

Minimally invasive video-assisted versus minimally invasive nonendoscopic thyroidectomy.

Zdeněk Fík, Jaromír Astl, Michal Zábrodský, Petr Lukeš, Ilja Merunka, Jan Betka, Martin Chovanec

Open access · hybridAbstract readControlled Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Minimal transcervical access single-port endoscopy-assisted thyroidectomy: a retrospective comparative study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zdeněk FíkDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Motol, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague 5, Czech Republic ; Institute of Anatomy, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, U Nemocnice 3, 128 00 Prague 2, Czech Republic.
Jaromír AstlDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Motol, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague 5, Czech Republic ; Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, Military Hospital, U Vojenské Nemocnice 1200, 169 00 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
Michal ZábrodskýDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Motol, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague 5, Czech Republic.
Petr LukešDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Motol, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague 5, Czech Republic.
Ilja MerunkaDepartment of Electromagnetic Field, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Technická 2, 166 27 Prague 6, Czech Republic.
Jan BetkaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Motol, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague 5, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-8772-317X
Martin ChovanecDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague and University Hospital Motol, V Úvalu 84, 150 06 Prague 5, Czech Republic.
Charles University · CZCzech Technical University in Prague · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) and minimally invasive nonendoscopic thyroidectomy (MINET) represent well accepted and reproducible techniques developed with the main goal to improve cosmetic outcome, accelerate healing, and increase patient's comfort following thyroid surgery. Between 2007 and 2011, a prospective nonrandomized study of patients undergoing minimally invasive thyroid surgery was performed to compare advantages and disadvantages of the two different techniques. There were no significant differences in the length of incision to perform surgical procedures. Mean duration of hemithyroidectomy was comparable in both groups, but it was more time consuming to perform total thyroidectomy by MIVAT. There were more patients undergoing MIVAT procedures without active drainage in the postoperative course and we also could see a trend for less pain in the same group. This was paralleled by statistically significant decreased administration of both opiates and nonopiate analgesics. We encountered two cases of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsies in the MIVAT group only. MIVAT and MINET represent safe and feasible alternative to conventional thyroid surgery in selected cases and this prospective study has shown minimal differences between these two techniques.

Indexed as

AdultAgedEndoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNeck PainThyroidectomyThyroid NoduleTreatment OutcomeVideo RecordingVocal Cord Paralysis

Identifiers

PMID24800227
PMCPMC3996987
OpenAlexW1989080039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.