A Comparison Between Transoral Endoscopic Thyroidectomy Vestibular Approach and Transareolar Approaches Regarding Perioperative Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global adoption of remote thyroidectomy is increasing, with the transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach (TOETVA) and transareolar approach (TAA) emerging as predominant methods. However, existing meta-analyses comparing these approaches to operative surgeries and short-term postoperative complications have significant limitations. To address this gap, our meta-analysis provides a comprehensive comparison between the TOETVA and TAA, focusing on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and hospital stay duration. It aims to offer robust insights into their relative efficacy and safety profiles. We searched SCOPUS, PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library from June 2015 to January 2024 for studies comparing transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy with the vestibular approach and areolar thyroidectomy using keywords, including "transoral thyroidectomy" and "scarless thyroidectomy." Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or prospective/retrospective cohort studies comparing the TOETVA and TAA. Exclusion criteria removed case series, cross-sectional studies, editorials, non-English language, animal studies, and irrelevant articles. Data on operative time, postoperative drainage, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality (all studies scored 7-8). The findings revealed that the operative time was longer among the TOETVA group, with less intraoperative blood loss (odds ratio (OR) = 13.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.44-22.19); OR = -1.61, 95% CI = -2.82 to -0.39, respectively). Regarding hospitalization duration and postoperative drainage, no discernible difference was observed between the endoscopic TAA (ETAA) and TOETVA (OR = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.16; OR = -6.74, 95% CI = -20.08 to 6.60, respectively). The TOETVA has advantages over the TAA in terms of intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation times. However, both approaches exhibited comparable outcomes in terms of hospital stay duration and postoperative drainage. Furthermore, extensive randomized trials are warranted.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".