4.7 Article

Quality of Life After Robotic Thyroidectomy by a Gasless Unilateral Axillary Approach

期刊

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 21, 期 13, 页码 4188-4194

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3879-z

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Robotic thyroidectomies have been safely performed with early surgical outcomes comparable to conventional cervical thyroidectomies. However, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after robotic thyroidectomy has not yet been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare HRQOL of patients who underwent robotic thyroidectomy with that of those who received conventional thyroidectomy. We conducted a cross-sectional study in 111 patients who underwent either robotic thyroidectomy (44 patients) via a gasless unilateral axillary approach, or conventional cervical thyroidectomy (67 patients), for papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC). HRQOL of patients was assessed using two questionnaires, the University of Washington Quality of Life (UW-QOL) questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer, and the Quality of Life-Thyroid Version (QOL-TV), which was specifically designed for thyroid cancer patients. The survey using the questionnaires was performed 1 year after surgery at a routine outpatient clinic follow-up. There was no difference in UW-QOL scores between the two groups for any factor other than neck appearance and physical composite score, which were higher in the robotic group. Humor (mood) and anxiety, emotional measures of UW-QOL, were selected by patients in both groups as being their most significant issue during the preceding 7 days. There was no between-group difference in the four QOL-TV domains (physical, psychological, social, and spiritual well-being). Patients who underwent robotic thyroidectomy reported a higher score for satisfaction with neck appearance compared to patients receiving conventional cervical thyroidectomy. However, the overall HRQOL of patients in the robotic and conventional groups was similar.

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