Comparison of clinical effects of endoscopic thyroidectomy using the modified gasless transsubclavian approach and traditional open surgery for cN0 unilateral papillary thyroid carcinoma / 中华外科杂志

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the clinical effects of endoscopic thyroidectomy using a modified gasless transsubclavian approach and the traditional neck approach for unilateral papillary thyroid carcinoma (cN0). Methods: The clinical data of 135 patients with cN0 papillary thyroid carcinoma who underwent unilateral thyroidectomy in the Department of Thyroid Surgery, the First Hospital of Jilin University from October 2020 to November 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. There were 37 males and 98 females, aging (43.2±8.8) years (range 21 to 59 years). There were 51 cases using the modified gasless transsubclavian approach (TS group) and 84 cases using the traditional neck approach (TN group). Comparative analyses were performed between the operative results of the 2 groups by t-test, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and χ2 test. Results: All endoscopic operations were successfully completed without conversion to the traditional neck approach. Compared to the TN group, the TS group had a longer operation time (M(IQR)) (73.5 (22.5) minutes vs. 90.0 (30.0) minutes, Z=-5.831, P<0.01), more postoperative drainage (60 (25) ml vs. 95 (45) ml, Z=-6.275, P<0.01), higher hospitalization costs (22 687 (3 488) yuan vs. 26 652 (2 431) yuan, Z=-6.944, P<0.01), and a higher rate of parathyroid autotransplantation (15.5% (13/84) vs. 60.8% (31/51), χ2=29.651, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the total exposure rate of the central compartment, postoperative hospitalization time, the number of dissected lymph nodes, the number of metastatic lymph nodes, C-reactive protein ratio before and after operation, and preoperative and postoperative parathyroid hormone (all P>0.05). Conclusions: Endoscopic thyroidectomy using the modified gasless transsubclavian approach is safe for cN0 papillary thyroid carcinoma, with longer operating time, more postoperative drainage, higher hospitalization costs, and moredifficulty in preserving the inferior parathyroid gland in situ compared to traditional open surgery.