4.4 Review

Complication Rates of Total Thyroidectomy vs Hemithyroidectomy for Treatment of Papillary Thyroid Microcarcinoma A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY
卷 148, 期 6, 页码 531-539

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2022.0621

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders [T32 DC009401]
  2. NIH/National Cancer Institute (NCI) [3R01CA251566-02S1]
  3. NIH/NCI (University of Wisconsin) [R01CA251566]
  4. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1TR002373]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the surgical complication rates between total thyroidectomy (TT) and hemithyroidectomy (HT) for the treatment of papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMC). Patients undergoing HT had lower risks of temporary vocal fold paralysis, temporary hypoparathyroidism, and permanent hypoparathyroidism compared to those undergoing TT.
IMPORTANCE Papillary thyroid microcarcinomas (PTMCs) have been associated with increased thyroid cancer incidence in recent decades. Total thyroidectomy (TT) has historically been the primary treatment, but current guidelines recommend hemithyroidectomy (HT) for select low-risk cancers; however, the risk-benefit ratio of the 2 operations is incompletely characterized. OBJECTIVE To compare surgical complication rates between TT and HT for PTMC treatment. DATA SOURCES SCOPUS, Medline via the PubMed interface, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); through January 1, 2021, with no starting date restriction. Terms related to papillary thyroid carcinoma and its treatment were used for article retrieval. This meta-analysis used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline and was written according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) proposal. STUDY SELECTION Original investigations of adults reporting primary surgical treatment outcomes in PTMC and at least 1 complication of interest were included. Articles evaluating only secondary operations or non-open surgical approaches were excluded. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers and conflicts resolved by a senior reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random-effects inverse-variance weighting model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Cancer recurrence and site, mortality (all-cause and disease-specific), vocal fold paralysis, hypoparathyroidism, and hemorrhage/hematoma. Risk of bias was assessed using the McMaster Quality Assessment Scale of Harms scale. RESULTS In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 17 studies were analyzed and included 1416 patients undergoing HT and 2411 patients undergoing TT (HT: pooled mean [SD] age, 47.0 [10.0] years; 1139 [84.6%] were female; and TT: pooled mean [SD] age, 48.8 [10.0] years; 1671 [77.4%) were female). Patients undergoing HT had significantly lower risk of temporary vocal fold paralysis compared with patients undergoing TT (3.3% vs 4.5%) (weighted risk ratio [RR], 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7), temporary hypoparathyroidism (2.2% vs 21.3%) (weighted RR, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.0-0.4), and permanent hypoparathyroidism (0% vs 1.8%) (weighted RR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.0-0.8). Contralateral lobe malignant neoplasm recurrence was 2.3% in the HT group, while no such events occurred in the TT group. Hemithyroidectomy was associated with a higher overall recurrence rate (3.8% vs 1.0%) (weighted RR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.3-5.4), but there was no difference in recurrence in the thyroid bed or neck. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis help characterize current knowledge of the risk-benefit ratio of HT vs TT for treatment of PTMC and provide data that may have utility for patient counseling surrounding treatment decisions.

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

4.4
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