4.7 Article

Transoral Endoscopic Modified Radical Neck Dissection for Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 28, 期 5, 页码 2766-2766

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09466-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transoral endoscopic modified radical neck dissection of levels 2, 3, and 4 can be feasible and safe for highly selected patients.
Background. Recently, transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy via the vestibular approach (TOETVA) has become popular worldwide.1-3 After controlling for the technique, the authors used the transoral endoscopic approach to modified radical neck dissection (MRND) for papillary thyroid carcinoma with clinically positive lymph nodes in the lateral compartments. To the best of their knowledge, the authors report the first case of TOETVA for MRND. Patient. A 27-year-old woman had a diagnosis of cT1aN1bM0 right papillary thyroid carcinoma (metastatic to a small right level 4 lymph node). Therefore, total thyroidectomy, bilateral central neck dissection, and MRND of right levels 2, 3, and 4 were performed via the transoral endoscopic approach. Methods. Total thyroidectomy and bilateral central lymph node dissections were performed based on the three-trocar Anuwong technique.4 Then, the fourth incision was made near the sixth teeth in the right oral vestibular area for insertion of the fourth 5-mm trocar, which was used to expose the lateral lymph compartment and to perform right MRND easily. Results. The operation was completed successfully without conversion to open surgery. The total operative time was 170 min, and the operating time for MRND was 55 min. The numbers of harvested lymph nodes were 7 and 8 in the central and right lateral compartments, respectively. The numbers of metastatic lymph nodes were 2 and 1 in the central and lateral compartments, respectively. No major postoperative complications occurred. Conclusion. Transoral endoscopic MRND of levels 2, 3, and 4 can be feasible and safe for highly selected patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据