Introduction
In recent years, the incidence of thyroid cancer has continued to rise worldwide. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) is the most common subtype of thyroid cancer, and for most patients, surgery is an effective treatment [
1‐
3].
Since Gagner first performed endoscopic surgery on the head and neck in 1996 [
4], and the first endoscopic thyroidectomy was performed by Hüscher in 1997 [
5], endoscopic thyroidectomy has become widespread over the past few decadesx [
5]. With the advancements in high-definition endoscopy and robotic assistance systems, including axillary, breast, anterior chest, postauricular facelift, and transoral routes, the endoscopic remote access thyroidectomy has been developed to minimally scarring for improving the quality of life [
6‐
9]. The remote access approach provides excellent cosmesis and a magnified surgical view [
6]. Our previous research and other studies have established the superiority of robotic-assisted thyroidectomy and endoscopic thyroidectomy procedures over conventional open surgery in improving cosmetic outcomes and postoperative quality of life [
9,
10].
The bilateral areolar approach (BAA) and bilateral axilla-breast (BABA) approaches have become the most common methods for endoscopic and robotic-assisted thyroidectomy [
11]. Both approaches were similar regarding surgical view, feasibility, and invasiveness. Some previous studies compared endoscopic thyroidectomy with robotic thyroidectomy based on the BABA or transaxillary approach [
12‐
14]. However, no study has compared the BAA in endoscopic thyroidectomy (ET) with the BABA in robotic thyroidectomy (RT) in DTC patients. Since endoscopic and robotic-assisted thyroidectomy had comparable postoperative complications and locoregional recurrence rates [
14], we try to analyze the differences in surgical outcomes between ET and RT. This study aimed to investigate the clinical benefit of these two surgical procedures to evaluate the difference between these two surgical procedures. We compared the surgical outcomes of endoscopic BAA thyroidectomy versus robot-assisted thyroidectomy using the Bilateral axilla-breast approach in DTC and used propensity score matching to minimize bias in preoperative baseline data.
Discussion
In our present study, we provide evidence that robotic thyroidectomy offers many potential advantages over endoscopic thyroidectomy, including retrieving more central lymph nodes and shortening the procedure time. Furthermore, the procedure times for RG decreased gradually as the cases went by. However, the larger diameter of the thyroid specimen was removed by endoscopic. To clarify the advantages of these two surgical procedures, PSM analysis on the baseline data was performed to minimize biases in compared 2 Groups. Then, we compared the two groups postoperative outcomes and histopathologic characteristics. Our results showed that robotic-assisted surgical procedures have advantages over endoscopic lymph node retrieval and operative time. In contrast, endoscopic thyroidectomy procedures have broader applicability than robotic-assisted surgical procedures for the larger diameter of thyroid specimens.
With the innovation of robot thyroidectomy, RT using the same approaches as ET is widely developed [
21]. Robotic thyroidectomy using the BABA approach was first reported by Choe [
22]. According to many previous studies on patients undergoing endoscopic and robot thyroidectomy, there was a significant difference in the level of the operation time, number of retrieved central LN, and cosmetic satisfaction compared with conventional open thyroidectomy [
14,
23]. There have been some studies on this remote access that compared the postoperative pathological and surgical outcomes including complications between endoscopes and robotics, and these studies found that the robot has many advantages over the endoscopic thyroidectomy, such as providing a 3-D view of the surgery, the robot’s robotic arm removes tremors, and the three robotic arms allow for more delicate anatomy of the operative area [
12‐
14,
24,
25]. To our knowledge, there was no report of the comparison of BAA in endoscopes and BABA in robotics. Therefore, we choose the endoscopic BAA approach and the robotic BABA approach to study.
The superiority of robots in operation time has been demonstrated in two ways. On the one hand, we found that the mean operation time of EG was significantly longer than RG (Table
3). This proves that robotic-assisted surgical procedures take less time to complete the procedures. In contrast, others have shown that the robot thyroidectomy procedure takes more time than the endoscopic [
13,
14,
26]. This may be due to our extensive experience in robotic surgery, and we have less docking time.
Furthermore, like the endoscopic approach, we still have an assistant to help the instrument nurse change instruments, wipe the cavity lens, and take out the specimen. Repeated connection and disconnection from robotic arms could be a time-consuming procedure for robotic surgery compared to the endoscopic approach [
14]. These difficulties can be overcome with the cooperation of a trained surgical assistant. In addition, previous studies have focused on a single contrasting axillary approach, transoral approach, or BABA approach, respectively [
12,
25]. As reported in a study by Kim [
9], the BAA procedure requires longer operating times than the BABA procedure. The longer operating times were probably because of more difficulty handling the operation instruments. So the total surgery time may be related to our chosen remote access approaches.
On the other hand, the simple linear regression between the operation time and surgery cases shows that the operation times for RG decreased gradually as the cases went by (Fig.
3). In contrast, there was no statistical difference between surgery cases and operation time in endoscopic surgery. This indicates greater surgical efficiency with accumulated experience and cases in RT. Meanwhile, the RG had retrieved more central lymph nodes than EG, indicating that robots are superior in the dissection of lymph nodes than endoscopy. This may be attributed to the advantages of the robot procedure in three-dimensional magnification and precise manipulation of instruments without tremor [
12,
13,
25]. Similar observations have been documented for the significant difference in the number of retrieved central lymph nodes between endoscopic and robotic group [
12]. Likewise, they found that the robot procedure has an advantage over lymph node dissection compared with the endoscopic procedure. This means that robot procedure has a wider extent and radical operations. As reported in a study by Lee, robotic thyroidectomy was more advanced than endoscopic thyroidectomy in terms of operative time, lymph node dissection, and learning curve [
27]. This significant difference in the number of CLNs resected may be meaningful for DTC patients who will receive therapeutic CND [
28,
29].
However, the mean maximum diameter of thyroid specimens was more expansive in the EG than in the RG (Table
3), which also provided evidence of a more radical approach in EG to surgical indications. We did not include the thyroid gland size in the covariates because the size of the thyroid gland of the included patients did not affect the surgical approach. The endoscope can use the human hand’s flexibility without considering the distance between the robotic arms to make a larger angle than the robot. This may be the reason why endoscopic thyroidectomy can remove larger thyroid glands.
Due to men’s more prominent musculoskeletal structure, which poses greater technical challenges than women’s [
14], the proportion of male patients who chose RT was much higher than the ET group. The superiority of the robot in removing lymph nodes may have led to a preference for robotic surgery in more PCT patients [
27,
30]. In addition, according to the ACJJ [
31], the category of T1a patients more frequently underwent robotic thyroidectomy than endoscopic. In comparison, more categories of T1b and T3b underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy.
Unlike our study, a previous trial showed that RT had more frequent hypocalcemia. They think it might be due to the complete cleaning of thyroid tissue. Complete perithyroidal fascia and soft tissue removal may lead to transient thermal damage to the parathyroid gland or transient ischemia [
12]. Through our research, we have shown that through the increase in surgical proficiency, both lymph node removal and prevention of postoperative complications can be taken into account. At the same time, special care should be taken to protect the parathyroid glands while performing surgery. As reported in previous studies [
32], in more invasive surgery, the harmonic scalpel and hemostatic powder are required to minimize the risk of Hemostasis and complications during thyroidectomy. In our study, hypoparathyroidism, hypocalcemia, infection, bleeding, flap necrosis, and RLN injury were absent in either group of procedures. This is consistent with the results of a previous meta-analysis [
33]. Past studies found that the completeness of robotic lymph node dissection may impact postoperative drainage [
13]. However, this study did not find a significant difference in the total amount of drainage, drain insertion (days), and postoperative hospital stay. No significant differences were found in cosmetic satisfaction. A similar report has demonstrated that ET and RT both have superior cosmetic effects to conventional open surgery [
12].
Since our department completed the first da Vinci robot-assisted thyroidectomy in mainland China in 2014, we have had more than 2 thousand successful cases of robotic surgery. The major strength of this study was that we accumulated a large amount of clinical data and surgical experience to support this study. As we know, we first showed the comparison of the robotic BABA approach and the endoscopic BAA approach using propensity score matching. Furthermore, our findings may carry more credibility than other studies because all comparisons, including surgical outcome and postoperative pathology, were performed under strictly matched conditions.
However, as this study is retrospective, the main limitation of this study is that selection bias cannot be eliminated, and the unobserved covariate values cannot be balanced by propensity score matching. So this study cannot replace the randomization process. The comparison of these two groups requires further prospective controlled studies. Furthermore, complications and recurrence need to be further studied in long-term follow-up. In addition, although we used a 1:4 ratio of matching to balance the two groups, too few endoscopic cases were included in this study. Including patients who underwent thyroidectomy with lateral neck dissection for DTC, long-term follow-up results, and other approaches in robotic or endoscopic thyroidectomy are required in further studies.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.