ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Robotic Versus Conventional Open Thyroidectomy for Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovation, cost, and evidence: a critical appraisal of robotic surgery in head and neck and endocrine surgery : A structured critical review of the evidence, with attention to lower-resource settings.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- [Application of domestic single-port robotic surgical system in thyroid cancer].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review aims to investigate the safety of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) by comparing robotic thyroidectomy (RT) versus open thyroidectomy (OT) in Western and Asian populations. Two main outcomes of this review were (1) the safety of RLN comparing the robotic and OT assessing transient and permanent laryngeal nerve (PLN) palsy as a postoperative complication in each surgical procedure and (2) the safety of RLN comparing the robotic and OT assessing transient and permanent laryngeal nerve (PLN) palsy as a postoperative complication between studies conducted in USA/Europe and Asia. We searched relevant literature in electronic databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, ScienceDirect, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) up to September 2022. Further research was performed during January 2024 in the Scopus database. Two primary outcomes were set: transient RLN palsy and permanent RLN palsy, comparing RT and OT. In this review, 18 non-randomized studies were included. A statistically significant difference between robotic and conventional OT was not observed either in transient RLN or in permanent RLN palsy. The odds ratio (OR) for the overall comparison of transient RLN palsy was 1.18, and the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was 0.80-1.74. The subgroup analysis for transient RLN palsy between USA/Europe studies was OR 1.28, and the 95% CI was 0.64-2.58. The subgroup analysis for transient RLN palsy between Asian studies was OR 1.14, and the 95% CI was 0.72-1.82. The OR for the overall comparison of permanent RLN palsy was OR 0.90, and the 95% CI was 0.38-2.15. The subgroup analysis for permanent RLN palsy between USA/Europe studies was OR 0.45, and the 95% CI was 0.07-2.97. The subgroup analysis for permanent RLN palsy between Asian studies was OR 1.13, and the 95% CI was 0.42-3.05. Heterogeneity I
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.