ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2025
Gasless versus gas-inflated transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy for papillary thyroid carcinoma: a cohort study on surgical outcomes and learning curves.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional open thyroidectomy (COT) results in visible neck scarring. Transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (TET) comprises gasless (suspension-assisted) and gas-inflated approaches, both of which offer superior scar concealment. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two endoscopic techniques for treating papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). Methods: A total of 471 patients were stratified into three groups: gasless transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (GTET), gas-inflated transaxillary endoscopic thyroidectomy (GITET), and COT. Comparative analyses included perioperative outcomes, complication rates, cosmetic satisfaction and others. The cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve was applied to evaluate the learning curves of GTET and GITET. Results: Patients in the TET groups were younger and included a higher proportion of females compared to COT. The COT group demonstrated advantages in operation time, postoperative drainage volume, and the number of retrieved central lymph nodes over TET groups. No significant differences were observed among the three groups in postoperative complication rates or sensory abnormalities. However, the COT group had higher swallowing-discomfort incidence. In terms of cosmetic outcomes, GITET surpassed GTET, with lower postoperative pain scores. The learning curves for both GTET and GITET were biphasic, achieving mastery after 42 and 67 cases respectively. No significant difference was found in the efficacy of central lymph node dissection between the two endoscopic approaches. Conclusion: Both GTET and GITET were reliable and safe surgical approaches, with reduced postoperative swallowing discomfort compared to COT. While GITET offered superior cosmetic outcomes and lower postoperative pain scores than GTET, achieving technical proficiency required more cases.
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.