Users Online : 395 About us |  Subscribe |  e-Alerts  | Feedback | Login   
Journal of Minimal Access Surgery Current Issue | Archives | Ahead Of Print Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
           Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and transoral video-assisted thyroidectomy: A comparison of two systematic reviews


1 Department of Surgical Sciences, ‘Sapienza’ University of Rome, Rome, Italy
2 Department of Environment and Health, Superior Institute of Health, Rome, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Francesco Tartaglia,
Largo Pannonia, 48, Rome 00183
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jmas.JMAS_123_19

Background: We compared two systematic reviews, one focusing on transoral video-assisted thyroidectomy (TOVAT) and the other on minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT), to highlight the pros and cons that can determine the choice of one or the other procedure. Materials and Methods: PubMed, Scopus and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for relevant articles published from 2000 to June 2018. Both searches were performed using the same keywords. All articles describing human surgical case series of any size were included, while the following were excluded: articles published in languages other than English, case reports, reviews, early cadaver and animal studies and old reports of cases now included in more recent works. Application of the above selection criteria yielded 151 articles on TOVAT and 246 on MIVAT. Of these, 34 articles were selected for inclusion in the present study: 17 for the TOVAT group and 17 for the MIVAT group. The comparison was made considering the most common variables used in evaluating thyroid surgery procedures. The statistical methods used were Cohen's delta, Student's t-test and the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test. Results: The variable 'operative time' was found to show a very large effect size, and 'hospital stay' also differed significantly between the MIVAT and TOVAT groups. Conclusions: TOVAT and MIVAT should not be considered in competition with each other, but seen simply as alternative choices. Both appear to be safe methods, comparable in terms of post-operative complications, although the main reason for using TOVAT seems to be purely aesthetic.


Print this article
Search
 Back
 
 
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed127    
    PDF Downloaded47    

Recommend this journal

2004 Journal of Minimal Access Surgery
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 15th August '04