Clinical analysis of a new multifunctional instrument set for gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy with two different...

Following the rapid development of endoscopic thyroidectomy techniques, various surgical procedures have been developed (e.g., transoral, submandibular, areolar, axillary, retroauricular, and combined procedures), and each of these procedures has its own advantages. In recent years, gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy has emerged as a feasible procedure, and it has replaced traditional CO2 insufflation approaches because of advantages such as stable cavity construction, pollution reduction, resource saving, and risk reduction. However, each gasless procedure requires special instruments for cavity construction, and this results in enormous wastage of medical resources. In the present study, we introduced a set of instruments developed by our team. This set of instruments is designed to be compatible with the current gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy approaches, including transoral, submandibular, transareolar, transaxillary, retroauricular, combined, and lateral cervical lymph node dissection. Here, we introduced this set of instruments for two gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy procedures (transaxillary and transareolar). Following the incorporation of this set of instruments in regular clinical practice, it could be used for more gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy procedures in the future.

To investigate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the self-developed instruments for gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy in two different approaches.

A total of 180 patients diagnosed to have papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) between January 2020 and April 2022 were retrospectively investigated. The patients were assigned to a gasless transaxillary group (group A) and a gasless transareolar group (group B). The same gasless endoscopic-assisted instruments were used for both groups. The clinical characteristics, treatment results, and complications were compared between the two groups.

All 180 patients were successfully operated. The extent of surgical resection in all patients was the same: "unilateral glandular lobectomy + isthmus combined with ipsilateral central zone lymph node dissection." There were 130 and 50 patients in group A and group B, respectively; one patient in the former group was converted to open surgery due to intraoperative bleeding. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), education level, and proportion of concomitant Hashimoto's thyroiditis (P > 0.05). The establishment of cavity time was significantly longer in group A than in group B (35.62 ± 5.07 min vs. 17.46 ± 2.55 min, P < 0.01). The number of lymph nodes cleared was slightly less in group A than in group B (4.06 ± 2.93 vs. 4.52 ± 2.38, P = 0.07). Moreover, the two groups showed no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the total operative time (145.54 ± 45.11 min vs. 143.06 ± 46.70 min), tumor size (0.68 ± 0.46 cm vs. 0.71 ± 0.49 cm), postoperative hospital stay (4.08 ± 1.48 days vs. 3.72 ± 1.07 days), vocal cord paralysis [4 (3.1%) vs. 2 (4%)], postoperative swallowing discomfort [24 (18.5%) vs. 5 (10%)], and postoperative recurrence and satisfaction scores (3.27 ± 1.52 vs. 3.28 ± 1.53).

Although the two approaches of gasless endoscopic surgery have different operative paths and different time periods for cavity construction, both approaches are similar in terms of the principle of cavity construction, safe and reliable postoperative efficacy, and good cosmetic effect. Therefore, the same set of instruments can be used to complete the surgery in both approaches, thus saving medical resources and facilitating the popularization of this technology.