Observational studyUpdates in surgery2024
Mini-invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy vs robot-assisted transaxillary thryoidectomy: analisys and comparison of safety and outcomes.
Observational study in Updates in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Thyroid surgery is characterized by large volumes and typically affects a young female population. Mini-invasive or remote access surgical techniques are born driven by the desire to improve aesthetic outcomes of the traditional technique, following technological advances that have upset the surgical world in the last 20 years. In our multicenter, retrospective observational study, we first compared an endoscopic technique with a robotic one: minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) and robot-assisted transaxillary thyroidectomy (RATT). We evaluated intraoperative features, complications, and cosmetic outcomes in a cohort of 609 patients. The efficacy and safety of these techniques are proven by a large literature and the comparison made in our study does not show inferiority of one technique compared to the other. Even the aesthetic results tend to be equal in the long term. It is desirable that further prospective and randomized studies are conducted to evaluate the outcomes of these procedures and the cost-benefit ratio.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38198118What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.