ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative short- and long-term outcomes of TOETVA, ETGUA, and COT in thyroid cancer: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to compare the short-term and long-term outcomes of three surgical approaches for thyroid cancer: Transoral Endoscopic Thyroidectomy Vestibular Approach (TOETVA), Gasless Unilateral Axillary Endoscopic Thyroidectomy (ETGUA), and Conventional Open Thyroidectomy (COT). Methods: A total of 466 thyroid cancer patients who underwent surgery were initially included. After propensity score matching (PSM), 318 patients were analyzed, with 106 patients in each group (TOETVA, ETGUA, and COT). The primary outcomes compared included surgical parameters (incision length, blood loss, operation time, lymph node dissection), postoperative inflammation (WBC, CRP, IL-6), postoperative complications, postoperative pain (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), scar assessment (Vancouver Scar Scale, VSS), wound satisfaction, costs, and quality of life (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, SF-36). Results: After matching, the operation time for TOETVA was longer than that for both ETGUA and COT. The number of lymph nodes dissected in ETGUA was fewer than in TOETVA and COT. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications, VAS scores, costs, or hospital stay among the three groups. On the first postoperative day, TOETVA and ETGUA showed higher levels of WBC and CRP than COT, but no significant differences were observed by day three. TOETVA had the shortest incision and the lowest VSS score. Wound satisfaction was significantly higher in both TOETVA and ETGUA compared to COT, with no significant difference between TOETVA and ETGUA. In terms of quality of life, some dimensions in TOETVA and ETGUA were higher than in COT. Each surgical approach has its own advantages and disadvantages. Conclusion: TOETVA demonstrated the shortest incision and the lowest VSS score, while both TOETVA and ETGUA showed the best wound satisfaction and specific domains of quality of life. However, TOETVA had the longest operation time, and ETGUA had the fewest lymph nodes dissected.
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.