caa a22 4500 44533682X CHVBK 20180317142758.0 cr unu---uuuuu 170323e20110501xx s 000 0 eng 10.1245/s10434-010-1486-1 doi (NATIONALLICENCE)springer-10.1245/s10434-010-1486-1 Comparison of Endoscopic and Robotic Thyroidectomy [Elektronische Daten] [J. Lee, J. Lee, K. Nah, E. Soh, W. Chung] Background: Endoscopic thyroidectomy is a technically challenging procedure. Robot-assisted thyroidectomy has been recently introduced and offers improved visualization and dexterity. The present study compared conventional endoscopic and robotic thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer patients in terms of perioperative outcomes and learning curve. All operations were performed by the same surgeon. Materials and Methods: Between April 2007 and March 2010, 96 patients underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy (endoscopy group) and 163 patients underwent robotic thyroidectomy (robot group). A gasless transaxillary approach was used in both groups. The 2 groups were compared in terms of patient characteristics, perioperative clinical results, complications, and pathologic details. Learning curves for the 2 procedures were compared based on the number of cases required to reach a consistent operation time. Results: Patient characteristics were similar for both groups. The mean total operation time for thyroidectomy with central compartment neck dissection was 142.7±52.1min in the endoscopy group and 110.1±50.7min in the robot group (P=.041). Both patient groups were similar in terms of pathological features including TNM stage, intraoperative blood loss, length of hospital stay, and complication rate. However, the mean number of retrieved central lymph nodes was 2.4±1.9 for the endoscopy group and 4.5±1.5 for the robot group (P=.004). The learning curve was 55-60 cases for endoscopic thyroidectomy and 35-40 cases for robotic thyroidectomy. Conclusion: Robotic thyroidectomy was found to be superior to endoscopic thyroidectomy in terms of operation time, lymph node retrieval, and learning curve. Complication rates and postoperative hospital stay were similar for the 2 procedures. Society of Surgical Oncology, 2010 Lee J. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea aut Nah K. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea aut Soh E. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea aut Chung W. Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea aut Annals of Surgical Oncology Springer-Verlag 18/5(2011-05-01), 1439-1446 1068-9265 18:5<1439 2011 18 10434 https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1486-1 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1486-1 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Lee J. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Nah K. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Soh E. Department of Surgery, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea aut NATIONALLICENCE 700 1- Chung W. Department of Surgery, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea aut NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Annals of Surgical Oncology Springer-Verlag 18/5(2011-05-01), 1439-1446 1068-9265 18:5<1439 2011 18 10434 Metadata rights reserved Springer special CC-BY-NC licence nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-springer