SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Efficacy and safety of transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach of papillary thyroid carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This network meta-analysis aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach (TOETVA) compared with open thyroidectomy (OT) and the endoscopic thyroidectomy via axillary breast approach (ABA) for treating papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). Materials and methods: Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were systematically searched from inception to January 31, 2026, for clinical studies comparing at least two of the three thyroidectomy approaches (TOETVA, OT, ABA) in patients with PTC. A network meta-analysis was conducted using RStudio (version 2025.05.1). Standardized mean differences and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: A total of 28 studies involving 8,047 patients were included. In this cohort, 1,623 patients underwent TOETVA, 5,605 underwent OT, and 819 underwent ABA. The network meta-analysis revealed the following findings: (1) Surgical efficiency: Both OT and ABA were associated with shorter operative times than TOETVA (MD = -73.85 minutes, P < 0.001; MD = -30.59 minutes, P < 0.001). (2) Postoperative recovery: OT was superior to TOETVA in terms of shorter postoperative hospital stay (MD = -0.49 days, P = 0.042) and lower drainage volume (MD = -58.03 mL, P = 0.012), while no significant differences were observed between ABA and TOETVA for these two outcomes. (3) Tumor radicality: No statistically significant differences were found among the three approaches regarding the number of lymph nodes dissected, the number of metastatic lymph nodes, or postoperative recurrence rate. (4) Nerve protection: No differences were observed among the three approaches in terms of temporary or permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury. However, OT was superior to TOETVA in sensory nerve protection (OR = 0.09, P = 0.010). (5) Parathyroid function: TOETVA was superior to OT in preventing temporary hypoparathyroidism (OR = 0.48, P = 0.023). (6) Other complications: No significant differences were found among the three approaches in terms of bleeding, hematoma, seroma, or infection. Conclusions: TOETVA, OT, and ABA all demonstrated safe and reliable clinical efficacy for PTC. TOETVA represents a safe and feasible alternative to OT, offering comparable surgical and oncological outcomes with the added benefits of better parathyroid protection.
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.