Total endoscopic thyroidectomy versus conventional open thyroidectomy in thyroid cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the considerable experience gained thus far using endoscopic technologies, the role of total endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET) for papillary thyroid cancer (PTC) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the safety and effectiveness of total ET compared with conventional open thyroidectomy (OT) in PTC. Methods: A systematic search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases up to March 2018. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Review Manager software version 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. Results: Twelve studies including 2,672 patients were ultimately included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. ET was associated with longer operative time ( P <0.00001), drainage time ( P <0.00001) and hospital stay ( P =0.03), higher transient recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) palsy rate ( P =0.004) and a greater amount of drainage fluid ( P <0.0001) compared with OT. Furthermore, no significant differences were detected between ET and OT in terms of retrieved lymph nodes ( P =0.17), blood loss ( P =0.22), transient hypocalcemia ( P =0.84), permanent hypocalcemia ( P =0.58), permanent RLN palsy ( P =0.14), hematoma or bleeding ( P =0.15) and seroma ( P =0.54). In addition, the rates of tumor recurrence were comparable ( P =0.18), whereas the proportions of stimulated thyroglobulin levels <1 ng/mL measured after completion of thyroidectomy and radioactive iodine therapy were less ( P =0.02) in the ET than in the OT group. Conclusion: ET is not superior to OT in terms of operation and drainage time, amount of drainage fluid, hospital stay or transient RLN palsy, but is comparable to OT in terms of retrieved lymph nodes and permanent complications. Despite the similar tumor recurrence rates between the two approaches, the level of surgical completeness in ET may not be as good as that for OT. Keywords: endoscopic thyroidectomy, conventional open thyroidectomy, papillary thyroid carcinoma, meta-analysis
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".