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....
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Otolaryngology-head and neck surgery 2012-07, Vol.147 (1), p.20-25 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 < .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 < .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 < .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 |