4.5 Article

Substernal goiter: when is a sternotomy required?

Journal

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH
Volume 199, Issue 1, Pages 121-125

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.045

Keywords

Substernal goiter; Sternotomy; Thyroidectomy

Categories

Funding

  1. NCATS NIH HHS [KL2 TR000428, UL1 TR000427] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Sternotomy for substernal goiters (SSG) is associated with greater morbidity than a cervical approach to thyroidectomy. We sought to identify predictors for sternotomy as a surgical approach for the removal of SSG and analyzed the preoperative and postoperative characteristics of patients with SSG compared with those with large goiters contained entirely within the neck or a cervical goiter. Methods: A retrospective review of a surgical database was performed. We included patients with large (>100 g) thyroids or SSG, regardless of size. Between 1995 and 2013, 220 patients met these criteria. Comparisons were made between patients who had an SSG and patients who had a cervical goiter with particular focus on those who required sternotomy. Results: Of the 220 patients, 127 patients (58%) had SSG, of whom 7 (5.5%) required sternotomy. All patients who underwent sternotomy underwent preoperative computed tomography scanning and were more likely to have preoperative symptoms of chest pressure and voice complaints and have extension of the thyroid gland below the aortic arch. Sternotomy took an average of 2 hours longer than a cervical incision, was associated with significantly more blood loss (600 versus 190 mL, P = 0.04), and a longer length of stay (3.1 versus 1.8 d, P = 0.03) than cervical thyroidectomy. Conclusions: Sternotomy for SSG is rare. All patients necessitating sternotomy had extension below the aortic arch and were more likely to present complaining of chest pressure and voice issues. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available