SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2026
Perioperative outcomes of transoral endoscopic vs. robotic thyroidectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach (TOETVA) and transoral robotic thyroidectomy (TORT) have emerged as scarless alternatives to conventional open thyroidectomy, offering excellent cosmetic outcomes. However, the comparative perioperative outcomes between these two minimally invasive techniques remain to be systematically evaluated. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of TOETVA and TORT in patients undergoing thyroid surgery.
methodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to March 1, 2026, for studies comparing TOETVA and TORT. The primary outcomes included recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, hypoparathyroidism, mental nerve injury, seroma, surgical site infection, and postoperative hemorrhage. The secondary outcome included operation time, length of hospital stay, number of lymph nodes dissected, and postoperative pain score. Pooled weighted mean differences (MD) or odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
resultsA total of 5 studies involving 1,080 patients were included (639 in the TOETVA group and 441 in the TORT group). Compared with TOETVA, TORT was associated with significantly longer operation time (MD = -56.74 min, 95% CI [-73.41, -40.07], p < 0.05) but shorter hospital stay (MD = 0.26 days, 95% CI [0.03, 0.49], p < 0.05). The incidence of transient recurrent laryngeal nerve injury was significantly higher in the TOETVA group than in the TORT group (OR = 3.56, 95% CI [1.14, 11.06], p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the number of lymph nodes dissected, the number of metastatic central compartment lymph nodes, the incidence of permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, mental nerve injury, transient or permanent hypoparathyroidism, seroma, surgical site infection, or postoperative hemorrhage.
conclusionAlthough TORT is associated with longer operative time, it demonstrates potential advantages in terms of length of hospital stay and neuroprotection.The two procedures are comparable in terms of radicality of lymph node dissection, postoperative pain, and low complication rates. TORT is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option with better neural protection, especially suitable for patients prioritizing cosmetic outcomes. Long-term oncological safety still needs to be verified in future multicenter studies with larger samples and longer follow-up durations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42144490What 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.