ArticleUpdates in surgery2026
Ambulatory endoscopic thyroidectomy via a unilateral-axillary approach has an acceptable safety profile for thyroid nodule.
Article in Updates in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the safety, efficacy, and economic outcomes of ambulatory with inpatient gasless trans-axillary endoscopic unilateral thyroidectomy (GTEUT).
methodsData were collected from patients who underwent GTEUT in the day surgery or inpatient wards of Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, between January 1, 2021, and January 1, 2024. All surgeries were performed by the same experienced surgical team, using identical inclusion and exclusion criteria.
resultsA total of 458 patients were included in the study, with 322 in the ambulatory GTEUT group and 136 in the inpatient GTEUT group. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was lower in the ambulatory GTEUT group (7.76%) compared to the inpatient GTEUT group (10.29%), although the difference was not statistically significant. Hospitalization expenses in the ambulatory GTEUT group were reduced by approximately 29% compared to the inpatient group, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for ambulatory group, who were discharged within 24 h (1.01 ± 0.10 days) compared to the inpatient group (5.76 ± 1.64 days) (p < 0.001). Anxiety and depression levels were higher in the ambulatory GTEUT group compared to the inpatient group, with the difference being statistically significant.
conclusionAmbulatory GTEUT is a safe alternative to inpatient surgical methods. It offers the advantages of shorter hospital stays and improved economic benefits. However, the mental health of patients undergoing daytime surgeries requires further attention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40543009What 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.