Qualitative and Quantitative Differences between 2 Robotic Thyroidectomy Techniques

Objectives Two distinct remote access robotic thyroidectomy techniques were implemented in a high-volume endocrine surgery practice. Important technical and clinical differences were observed and are described. Study Design Cross-sectional study with planned data collection. Setting Thyroid center....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery 2012-07, Vol.147 (1), p.20-25
Hauptverfasser: Terris, David J., Singer, Michael C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 25
container_issue 1
container_start_page 20
container_title Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery
container_volume 147
creator Terris, David J.
Singer, Michael C.
description Objectives Two distinct remote access robotic thyroidectomy techniques were implemented in a high-volume endocrine surgery practice. Important technical and clinical differences were observed and are described. Study Design Cross-sectional study with planned data collection. Setting Thyroid center. Subjects and Methods A panel of demographic and clinical parameters was captured in a series of patients undergoing 1 of 2 robotic thyroidectomy techniques (robotic axillary thyroidectomy [RAT] or robotic facelift thyroidectomy [RFT]). Particular attention was paid to time of surgery, ease of dissection, complications, use of drains, and length of stay. Results Fifteen robotic hemithyroidectomies were accomplished by either RAT (n = 5) or RFT (n = 10). The duration of surgery for RAT averaged 196 ± 38.1 minutes, with no clear downward trend observed. The mean time of surgery for RFT was 156.9 ± 16.3 minutes, with a steady trend toward shorter surgical times. All 5 RAT patients were managed with drains and as inpatients (length of stay = 1.0 days); 9 of 10 RFT patients were managed without drains and on an outpatient basis (the first patient had a drain and was observed for 1 night in the hospital; P < .001). Ease of surgery, familiarity with anatomic dissection planes, and surgeon comfort level all favored RFT. Conclusions In an early experience of a small series of patients, a more rapid learning curve reflected by shorter operative times was observed with robotic facelift thyroidectomy compared with robotic axillary thyroidectomy. Furthermore, the vast majority of patients could be managed as outpatients, which represents one of several apparent advantages.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0194599812439283
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1022846394</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0194599812439283</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1022846394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3863-30069b5bf9e176a1a28bf7a0c0d61f268c31f7e8056ee4c83d2eab0e59830c8e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkDlPw0AQhVcIRMLRUyGXNIY97D1KCIQgRURAqK31ekw28hG8NpH_PbacUCAhqtHMfO_N6CF0QfA1IULcYKKCUClJaMAUlewAjQlWwueSiEM07td-vx-hE-fWGGPOhThGI0qZICygY_T20ujM1rq2X-DpIvG6vqj3g3ubplBBYcB5MdRbgMKj3msZl7U13nLVVqVNwNRl3npLMKvCfjbgztBRqjMH57t6it6nD8vJzJ8vHp8mt3PfMMmZz7p3VBzGqQIiuCaayjgVGhuccJJSLg0jqQCJQw4QGMkSCjrGECrJsJHATtHV4Lupyv5uHeXWGcgyXUDZuIhgSmXAmQo6FA-oqUrnKkijTWVzXbUdFPVRRr-j7CSXO_cmziH5Eeyz6wA5AFubQfuvYbSYPd9NSShp7-0PUqc_IFqXTVV0Qf39yzflp4u5</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1022846394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Qualitative and Quantitative Differences between 2 Robotic Thyroidectomy Techniques</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Terris, David J. ; Singer, Michael C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Terris, David J. ; Singer, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives Two distinct remote access robotic thyroidectomy techniques were implemented in a high-volume endocrine surgery practice. Important technical and clinical differences were observed and are described. Study Design Cross-sectional study with planned data collection. Setting Thyroid center. Subjects and Methods A panel of demographic and clinical parameters was captured in a series of patients undergoing 1 of 2 robotic thyroidectomy techniques (robotic axillary thyroidectomy [RAT] or robotic facelift thyroidectomy [RFT]). Particular attention was paid to time of surgery, ease of dissection, complications, use of drains, and length of stay. Results Fifteen robotic hemithyroidectomies were accomplished by either RAT (n = 5) or RFT (n = 10). The duration of surgery for RAT averaged 196 ± 38.1 minutes, with no clear downward trend observed. The mean time of surgery for RFT was 156.9 ± 16.3 minutes, with a steady trend toward shorter surgical times. All 5 RAT patients were managed with drains and as inpatients (length of stay = 1.0 days); 9 of 10 RFT patients were managed without drains and on an outpatient basis (the first patient had a drain and was observed for 1 night in the hospital; P &lt; .001). Ease of surgery, familiarity with anatomic dissection planes, and surgeon comfort level all favored RFT. Conclusions In an early experience of a small series of patients, a more rapid learning curve reflected by shorter operative times was observed with robotic facelift thyroidectomy compared with robotic axillary thyroidectomy. Furthermore, the vast majority of patients could be managed as outpatients, which represents one of several apparent advantages.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0194-5998</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6817</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0194599812439283</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22371342</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adult ; cosmetic ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Evaluation Studies as Topic ; facelift ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; remote access ; robotic ; Robotics ; thyroid ; thyroidectomy ; Thyroidectomy - adverse effects ; Thyroidectomy - methods</subject><ispartof>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, 2012-07, Vol.147 (1), p.20-25</ispartof><rights>American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation 2012</rights><rights>2012 American Association of Otolaryngology‐Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO‐HNSF)</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3863-30069b5bf9e176a1a28bf7a0c0d61f268c31f7e8056ee4c83d2eab0e59830c8e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3863-30069b5bf9e176a1a28bf7a0c0d61f268c31f7e8056ee4c83d2eab0e59830c8e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0194599812439283$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0194599812439283$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,21799,27903,27904,43600,43601,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22371342$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Terris, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singer, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><title>Qualitative and Quantitative Differences between 2 Robotic Thyroidectomy Techniques</title><title>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</title><addtitle>Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</addtitle><description>Objectives Two distinct remote access robotic thyroidectomy techniques were implemented in a high-volume endocrine surgery practice. Important technical and clinical differences were observed and are described. Study Design Cross-sectional study with planned data collection. Setting Thyroid center. Subjects and Methods A panel of demographic and clinical parameters was captured in a series of patients undergoing 1 of 2 robotic thyroidectomy techniques (robotic axillary thyroidectomy [RAT] or robotic facelift thyroidectomy [RFT]). Particular attention was paid to time of surgery, ease of dissection, complications, use of drains, and length of stay. Results Fifteen robotic hemithyroidectomies were accomplished by either RAT (n = 5) or RFT (n = 10). The duration of surgery for RAT averaged 196 ± 38.1 minutes, with no clear downward trend observed. The mean time of surgery for RFT was 156.9 ± 16.3 minutes, with a steady trend toward shorter surgical times. All 5 RAT patients were managed with drains and as inpatients (length of stay = 1.0 days); 9 of 10 RFT patients were managed without drains and on an outpatient basis (the first patient had a drain and was observed for 1 night in the hospital; P &lt; .001). Ease of surgery, familiarity with anatomic dissection planes, and surgeon comfort level all favored RFT. Conclusions In an early experience of a small series of patients, a more rapid learning curve reflected by shorter operative times was observed with robotic facelift thyroidectomy compared with robotic axillary thyroidectomy. Furthermore, the vast majority of patients could be managed as outpatients, which represents one of several apparent advantages.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>cosmetic</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Evaluation Studies as Topic</subject><subject>facelift</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>remote access</subject><subject>robotic</subject><subject>Robotics</subject><subject>thyroid</subject><subject>thyroidectomy</subject><subject>Thyroidectomy - adverse effects</subject><subject>Thyroidectomy - methods</subject><issn>0194-5998</issn><issn>1097-6817</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkDlPw0AQhVcIRMLRUyGXNIY97D1KCIQgRURAqK31ekw28hG8NpH_PbacUCAhqtHMfO_N6CF0QfA1IULcYKKCUClJaMAUlewAjQlWwueSiEM07td-vx-hE-fWGGPOhThGI0qZICygY_T20ujM1rq2X-DpIvG6vqj3g3ubplBBYcB5MdRbgMKj3msZl7U13nLVVqVNwNRl3npLMKvCfjbgztBRqjMH57t6it6nD8vJzJ8vHp8mt3PfMMmZz7p3VBzGqQIiuCaayjgVGhuccJJSLg0jqQCJQw4QGMkSCjrGECrJsJHATtHV4Lupyv5uHeXWGcgyXUDZuIhgSmXAmQo6FA-oqUrnKkijTWVzXbUdFPVRRr-j7CSXO_cmziH5Eeyz6wA5AFubQfuvYbSYPd9NSShp7-0PUqc_IFqXTVV0Qf39yzflp4u5</recordid><startdate>201207</startdate><enddate>201207</enddate><creator>Terris, David J.</creator><creator>Singer, Michael C.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201207</creationdate><title>Qualitative and Quantitative Differences between 2 Robotic Thyroidectomy Techniques</title><author>Terris, David J. ; Singer, Michael C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3863-30069b5bf9e176a1a28bf7a0c0d61f268c31f7e8056ee4c83d2eab0e59830c8e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>cosmetic</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Evaluation Studies as Topic</topic><topic>facelift</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>remote access</topic><topic>robotic</topic><topic>Robotics</topic><topic>thyroid</topic><topic>thyroidectomy</topic><topic>Thyroidectomy - adverse effects</topic><topic>Thyroidectomy - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Terris, David J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Singer, Michael C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Terris, David J.</au><au>Singer, Michael C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Qualitative and Quantitative Differences between 2 Robotic Thyroidectomy Techniques</atitle><jtitle>Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery</jtitle><addtitle>Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg</addtitle><date>2012-07</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>147</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>20</spage><epage>25</epage><pages>20-25</pages><issn>0194-5998</issn><eissn>1097-6817</eissn><abstract>Objectives Two distinct remote access robotic thyroidectomy techniques were implemented in a high-volume endocrine surgery practice. Important technical and clinical differences were observed and are described. Study Design Cross-sectional study with planned data collection. Setting Thyroid center. Subjects and Methods A panel of demographic and clinical parameters was captured in a series of patients undergoing 1 of 2 robotic thyroidectomy techniques (robotic axillary thyroidectomy [RAT] or robotic facelift thyroidectomy [RFT]). Particular attention was paid to time of surgery, ease of dissection, complications, use of drains, and length of stay. Results Fifteen robotic hemithyroidectomies were accomplished by either RAT (n = 5) or RFT (n = 10). The duration of surgery for RAT averaged 196 ± 38.1 minutes, with no clear downward trend observed. The mean time of surgery for RFT was 156.9 ± 16.3 minutes, with a steady trend toward shorter surgical times. All 5 RAT patients were managed with drains and as inpatients (length of stay = 1.0 days); 9 of 10 RFT patients were managed without drains and on an outpatient basis (the first patient had a drain and was observed for 1 night in the hospital; P &lt; .001). Ease of surgery, familiarity with anatomic dissection planes, and surgeon comfort level all favored RFT. Conclusions In an early experience of a small series of patients, a more rapid learning curve reflected by shorter operative times was observed with robotic facelift thyroidectomy compared with robotic axillary thyroidectomy. Furthermore, the vast majority of patients could be managed as outpatients, which represents one of several apparent advantages.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>22371342</pmid><doi>10.1177/0194599812439283</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0194-5998
ispartof Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery, 2012-07, Vol.147 (1), p.20-25
issn 0194-5998
1097-6817
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1022846394
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Adult
cosmetic
Cross-Sectional Studies
Evaluation Studies as Topic
facelift
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
remote access
robotic
Robotics
thyroid
thyroidectomy
Thyroidectomy - adverse effects
Thyroidectomy - methods
title Qualitative and Quantitative Differences between 2 Robotic Thyroidectomy Techniques
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T18%3A39%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Qualitative%20and%20Quantitative%20Differences%20between%202%20Robotic%20Thyroidectomy%20Techniques&rft.jtitle=Otolaryngology-head%20and%20neck%20surgery&rft.au=Terris,%20David%20J.&rft.date=2012-07&rft.volume=147&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=20&rft.epage=25&rft.pages=20-25&rft.issn=0194-5998&rft.eissn=1097-6817&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0194599812439283&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1022846394%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1022846394&rft_id=info:pmid/22371342&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0194599812439283&rfr_iscdi=true