A Comparison Between the Transoral Endoscopic Thyroidectomy Vestibular Approach and the Transareolar Approach Regarding Perioperative Complications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

TL;DR

This study compares two minimally invasive thyroid surgery methods, finding that one causes less blood loss but takes longer, while both have similar recovery times.

Contribution

A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing TOETVA and TAA with updated data and improved methodology.

Findings

TOETVA had less intraoperative blood loss compared to TAA.

TOETVA had longer operative times than TAA.

Both approaches showed similar hospital stay and drainage outcomes.

Abstract

The global adoption of remote thyroidectomy is increasing, with the transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach (TOETVA) and transareolar approach (TAA) emerging as predominant methods. However, existing meta-analyses comparing these approaches to operative surgeries and short-term postoperative complications have significant limitations. To address this gap, our meta-analysis provides a comprehensive comparison between the TOETVA and TAA, focusing on operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage, and hospital stay duration. It aims to offer robust insights into their relative efficacy and safety profiles. We searched SCOPUS, PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library from June 2015 to January 2024 for studies comparing transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy with the vestibular approach and areolar thyroidectomy using keywords, including "transoral thyroidectomy" and "scarless thyroidectomy." Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, or prospective/retrospective cohort studies comparing the TOETVA and TAA. Exclusion criteria removed case series, cross-sectional studies, editorials, non-English language, animal studies, and irrelevant articles. Data on operative time, postoperative drainage, intraoperative blood loss, and hospital stay were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality (all studies scored 7-8). The findings revealed that the operative time was longer among the TOETVA group, with less intraoperative blood loss (odds ratio (OR) = 13.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.44-22.19); OR = -1.61, 95% CI = -2.82 to -0.39, respectively). Regarding hospitalization duration and postoperative drainage, no discernible difference was observed between the endoscopic TAA (ETAA) and TOETVA (OR = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.24 to 0.16; OR = -6.74, 95% CI = -20.08 to 6.60, respectively). The TOETVA has advantages over the TAA in terms of intraoperative blood loss and shorter operation times. However, both approaches exhibited comparable outcomes in terms of hospital stay duration and postoperative drainage. Furthermore, extensive randomized trials are warranted.

Figures