Dataset Information

Robotic retroauricular thyroidectomy with additional axillary port: Early personal experiences.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to analyze the usefulness of an additional axillary port in robotic retroauricular thyroidectomy by comparing the perioperative data and postoperative function between the operations with and without an additional axillary port.

Materials and methods

A retrospective review of the medical records of 11 patients who underwent robotic thyroid operations using a unilateral retroauricular approach with or without an additional axillary port between 2016 and 2021 was conducted. Patient demographics, operation time, drainage amount, hospital stay, complication, postoperative cosmetic satisfaction, and postoperative neck and shoulder pain were analyzed.

Results

Among the 11 patients who underwent robotic retroauricular thyroidectomy, an additional axillary port was used in 6 patients and not used in 5 patients. The total operation time was significantly shorter in the axillary port group (174.5 ± 23 minutes) compared to the without the axillary port group (207.6 ± 20.1 minutes) (P = .033). The intraoperative estimated blood loss (P = .525), total amount of drainage (P = .172), and postoperative hospital stays (P = .092) were not different between the 2 groups. There was no postoperative recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, hypoparathyroidism, hematoma, seroma in the two groups. There was no significant difference for either group in the pain score and cosmetic satisfaction at 2 weeks (P = .378, P = .650) and 6 weeks (P = .242, P = .546) postoperatively.

Conclusion

Robotic retroauricular thyroidectomy using an additional axillary port was a novel, safe, and feasible procedure. Dissection was easy due to the availability of the fourth robotic arm to retract the thyroid gland.Level of Evidence: 4.

SUBMITTER: Han SH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8356877 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Technological advances in the last decades allowed significant evolution in head and neck surgery toward less invasive procedures, with better esthetic and functional outcomes, without compromising oncologic soundness. Although robotic thyroid surgery has been performed for some years now and several published series reported its safety and feasibility, it remains the center of significant controversy. This study shows the results of a case series of robotic thyroid surgery, combined or not with robotic neck dissection. Methods:A retrospective cohort including 48 cases of robotic thyroid surgery with or without neck dissection, using retroauricular or combined approaches, performed in a tertiary cancer center, comprised the study. Results:Between 2015 and 2017, we performed 2,769 thyroid surgical procedures, of which 48 (1.7%) were robot-assisted, in 46 patients [26 hemithyroidectomies, 7 total thyroidectomies, and 12 total thyroidectomies (or totalization) with selective neck dissection (SND) II-VI; and 3 neck dissections for thyroid carcinoma]. There were 43 (89.6%) women, and the median age was 35 years. The mean hospital stay was 1.9 days. In 3 (6.2%) cases, drains were not placed (hemithyroidectomies), whereas the other 45 (93.8%) cases had a mean drain stay of 4.4 days (range, 1-9 days). The console time (robotic thyroid resection and neck dissection) ranged from 11 to 200 min (mean 66.1 min; median 40 min), and the total operating room time ranged from 80 to 440 min (mean 227.9 min; median 170 min). Three (6.2%) patients had transient vocal cord paresis. Transient hypocalcemia was reported in three cases (6.2%). There were 30 carcinomas (62.5%), and the mean number of retrieved lymph nodes (LNs) (considering only cases that included robotic neck dissection) was 27.2 (range, 17-40). The mean follow-up time was 17.4 months (range, 1.4-31.9 months), and no recurrence was diagnosed. Conclusions:The quality outcomes and complication rates are comparable to the conventional approaches. Therefore, robotic thyroidectomy can be an option for selected patients that are motivated to avoid a visible neck scar, treated in high-volume centers. For the patients who require lateral neck dissection, the retroauricular robotic approach could be even more attractive, especially for young patients.

Project description:Background The pursuit of less surgical incisions brings better postoperative experience of patients and earns extensive popularity recently. As the update to the da Vinci robotic surgical system has reduced the size of the robotic arm, a new surgical method with fewer ports has become feasible. We performed 20 cases of robotic surgery with only 2 ports and compared the efficacy and safety between bi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy and multi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy. Methods To compare the efficacy and safety of the different surgery strategies, we retrospectively reviewed 20 cases of bi-port robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) and 40 cases of multi-port RATS which were performed at the Shanghai Chest Hospital Between February 2021 and May 2021. The baseline characteristics and their perioperative data were collected and analyzed. Chest tube drainage, chest tube removal time, lymphadenectomy outcomes, operation duration were collected to compare the efficacy of the two groups and blood loss, perioperative complications were recorded to value the safety. Results A total of 60 surgeries in the 2 groups were successfully completed. The baseline characteristics in terms of sex, age, health statues were comparable (P≥0.05). The maximum diameter of the tumor in the bi-port surgery group was 0.5–3.6 cm (2.0±1.0) vs. 0.5–4.0 cm (1.9±0.9) cm in the control group. No significant difference was discovered in terms of tumor location, tumor maximum diameter, tumor histology. The intraoperative blood loss was 60.0±20.5 mL and the average operation time was 95.6±21.4 min in the bi-port surgery group compared to 65.0±30.4 mL and 101.4±25.0 min in the control group. An average of 6.0±1.4 lymph nodes were collected in the bi-port surgery group with a mean diameter of 1.2±0.4 cm, and in the control group, an average of 6.1±1.6 lymph nodes were collected with a mean diameter was 1.2±0.5 cm. The average time of chest drainage was 4.3±1 vs. 5.1±1.3 days in the bi-port surgery group and control group. No statistical significance was found between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusions Compared to multi-port RATS, Bi-port robotic-assisted lobectomy was safe and showed promising efficacy in patients with early staged operable lung cancer.

Project description:BackgroundThe adoption of Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) is increasing globally. Meanwhile, reduced-port RPD (RPRPD) remains uncommon, requiring robot-specific techniques not possible with laparoscopy. We introduce a unique RPRPD technique optimizing surgical field exposure.MethodsOur RPRPD utilizes a single-site plus-two ports technique, facilitated by a single-port platform through a 5-cm incision. The configuration of robotic arms (arm1, arm2, arm3, and arm4) were strategically designed for optimal procedural efficiency, with the arms2 and arm3, alongside the assistant trocar, mounted on the single-port platform, while the arms1 and arm4 were positioned laterally across the abdomen. Drainage was established via channels created at the arm1 and arm4 insertion sites. A "gooseneck traction" was principally employed with the robotic instrument to prop up the specimen rather than grasp, improving the surgical field's visibility and access. Clinical outcomes of patients who underwent RPRPD performed between August 2020 and September 2023 by a single surgeon across two centers in Taiwan and Japan were reviewed.ResultsFifty patients underwent RPRPD using the single-site plus-two ports technique. The gooseneck traction technique enabled goodsurgical field deployment and allowed for unrestricted movement of robotic arms with no collisions with the assistant instruments. The median operative time was 351 min (250-488 min), including 271 min (219-422 min) of console time and three minutes (2-10 min) of docking time. The median estimated blood loss was 80 mL (1-872 mL). All RPRPD procedures were successfully performed without the need for conversion to open surgery. Postoperative major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ IIIa) was observed in 6 (12%) patients and median postoperative hospital stay was 13 days.ConclusionsThe single-site plus-two ports RPRPD with the gooseneck traction proves to be a safe, feasible option, facilitating surgical field visibility and robotic arm maneuverability.