Did scarless thyroidectomy meet expectations? An evaluation in the aspect of cosmesis: A single-centre prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Thyroidectomy is among the most commonly performed endocrine surgeries. Concerns regarding cosmetic outcomes and pain management have led to various surgical innovations. This study compares post-operative patient satisfaction based on cosmesis and expectations between open thyroidectomy (conventional open thyroidectomy [COT]) and transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach (TOETVA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Female patients aged 18-65 years who underwent thyroidectomy for benign conditions were included. Patients were divided into two groups: COT and TOETVA, with 20 patients in each. Post-operative evaluations were conducted on days 15 and 30 using the Vancouver Scar Scale, the modified Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale and general/visual satisfaction questionnaires. RESULTS: Participants rated their surgeries on a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent) on days 15 and 30. No significant difference in visual scores was observed between groups. However, overall satisfaction scores were higher in the COT group on day 15 (3.5 ± 0.5 vs. 2.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.004) and day 30 (3.7 ± 0.5 vs. 3.1 ± 0.8, P = 0.021). Satisfaction scores and incision site oedema showed no significant differences between groups, but hyperaemia was significantly lower in the TOETVA group on day 30. Scar length was also significantly shorter in the TOETVA group. CONCLUSION: Higher satisfaction in the COT group may result from post-operative pain and transient chin numbness in the TOETVA group, alongside short follow-up period. Longer-term studies could better evaluate these differences. The lack of a significant difference in satisfaction suggests that patients' expectations-shaped by the surgical approach they independently choose-may significantly influence their overall satisfaction. While satisfaction scores were similar, TOETVA provides a notable cosmetic advantage due to hidden incisions, making it particularly appealing for patients with aesthetic concerns. This technique represents a significant advancement in achieving patient-centred outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".