Minimally Invasive Video-assisted Thyroidectomy vs Conventional Open Hemithyroidectomy in Asian Patients

Abstract

ABSTRACT Introduction Although the technique of minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) is well established in continental Europe, data on it's role in Asian patients is limited. We compared the results of MIVAT with conventional open hemithyroidectomy in Asian patients. Materials and methods Over a 1-year period, patients undergoing hemithyroidectomy for benign symptomatic goiters were selected. Inclusion criteria for MIVAT were benign colloid goiters, recurrent cysts or follicular lesions and neoplasms with lobe volume of less than 40 cc or nodule diameter less than 35 mm. Larger goiters underwent conventional open surgery. Patients with previous neck surgery and proven malignancy were excluded. Operative time, complications, postoperative pain score, incision length and cosmetic satisfaction at 6 months were recorded. Results Thirty-six patients (MIVAT-21, Conventional-15) were included. Both groups were comparable in terms of demographic profile and co-morbidities. The mean operating time for both groups showed no significant difference (MIVAT = 111.67 ± 19.4 min, Conventional = 112.40 ± 25.06 min; p = 0.925). Minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy patients had significantly less pain in the immediate postoperative period (mean pain score 2.38 vs 4.8, p < 0.001). Mean incision length at end of surgery was significantly smaller in the MIVAT group (2.58 vs 6.3 cm; p < 0.001). Neck scar satisfaction at 6 months was excellent in 71.4% of MIVAT cases vs 26.6% of conventional hemithyroidectomy cases. There were no complications in any of the treatment groups. Conclusion In selected cases, MIVAT is as safe as conventional open surgery with distinct advantages of better postoperative pain control and cosmesis. How to cite this article Rao AD, Singaporewalla RM, Majumder A. Minimally Invasive Video-assisted Thyroidectomy vs Conventional Open Hemithyroidectomy in Asian Patients. World J Endoc Surg 2016;8(3):189-192.