Transoral Thyroidectomy: Safety and Outcomes of 200 Consecutive North American Cases.

BACKGROUND: North American adoption of the transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach (TOETVA) has been limited due to concerns regarding the generalizability of published outcomes, as data are predominantly from Asian cohorts with a different body habitus. We describe our experience with TOETVA in a North American population in the context of the conventional transcervical approach thyroidectomy (TCA). STUDY DESIGN: Cases of TOETVA and TCA were reviewed from August 2017 to March 2020 at a tertiary care center. Outcomes included operative time, major (permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury, permanent hypoparathyroidism, hematoma, conversion to open surgery), and minor complications. The TOETVA cohort was stratified into body mass index (BMI) classes of underweight/normal < 25 kg/m2, overweight 25-29.9 kg/m2, and obese ≥ 30 kg/m2 for comparative analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed for odds of cumulative complication. RESULTS: Two hundred TOETVA and 333 TCA cases were included. There was no difference in incidence of major complications between the TOETVA and TCA cohorts (1.5% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.75). No difference was found in the rate of temporary RLN injury (4.5% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.124) or temporary hypoparathyroidism (18.2% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.163) for TOETVA and TCA, respectively. Surgical technique (TOETVA vs TCA) did not alter the odds of cumulative complication (OR 0.69 95% CI [0.26-1.85]) on logistic regression analysis. In the TOETVA cohort, higher BMI did not lead to a significantly greater odds of cumulative complication, 0.52 (95% CI [0.17-1.58]) and 1.69 (95% CI [0.74-3.88]) for the overweight and obese groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: TOETVA can be performed in a North American patient population without a difference in odds of complication compared to TCA. Higher BMI is not associated with greater likelihood of complication with TOETVA.

Cosmetic outcomes following transoral versus transcervical thyroidectomy.

BACKGROUND: Central neck scars following thyroidectomy can negatively impact patient quality of life. Transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy can reduce postoperative cosmetic burden. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of patients seen between June 2018 and January 2019. Scar cosmesis was determined using the validated Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) scale and a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measuring color, contour, and irregularity. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (80% female, mean age 43.7 years) were analyzed, with 60% and 40% receiving transcervical and transoral thyroidectomy. Median time from surgery was 3.4 (range: 1-37.1) weeks. Mean SCAR score was greater for transcervical recipients (4.69 vs transoral 0.99, P < .001), indicating worse cosmesis. Mean surgeon-rated total VAS score was similarly increased for transcervical recipients (72.84 vs transoral 16.73, P < .001). Interrater reliability for both SCAR and total VAS scores was excellent (intraclass correlation 0.93; 95% CI: 0.90-0.95 for both). CONCLUSION: Transoral thyroidectomy provides significantly enhanced early cosmesis over the transcervical approach.

Early outcomes in transoral vestibular thyroidectomy: Robotic versus endoscopic techniques.

BACKGROUND: The transoral thyroidectomy vestibular approach has been utilized via both robotic (TORTVA) and endoscopic (TOETVA) techniques to perform thyroidectomy. However, there have been no studies evaluating outcomes between these approaches. Here we describe our outcomes for thyroid lobectomy with TORTVA and TOETVA. METHODS: All cases of transoral vestibular approach thyroid lobectomy at Johns Hopkins Hospital were reviewed. Primary outcomes and demographic data were then compared between TORTVA and TOETVA. RESULTS: Twenty-seven cases were identified, 7 using the robotic approach and 20 using the endoscopic approach. The procedural success rate for the robotic and endoscopic cohorts was 5 of 7 (71%) and 19 of 20 (95%), respectively (P = .15). There were no persistent nerve injuries, mental, or recurrent in either cohort. Median operative time for TOETVA was 188 minutes versus 322 minutes for TORTVA (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Thyroid lobectomy can be safely performed via both techniques, although performed more quickly endoscopically, which is likely due in part to differences in the learning curves.

Central neck dissection via the transoral approach.

There has been a strong impetus for the development of remote access approaches to the central neck. The primary motivation for this has been to alleviate the negative impact that some patients may perceive from a central neck scar. Numerous approaches have been described; however the only approach that provides midline access and equivalent visualization of the bilateral thyroid lobes and paratracheal basins is transoral neck surgery (TONS). TONS has been shown to be safe and effective in performing thyroidectomy, parathyroidectomy, and central neck dissection (CND) via both the endoscopic and robotic techniques. In contrast with other remote access techniques, it provides the surgeon with familiar views of the bilateral recurrent laryngeal nerves (RLN) at their insertion site in concert with equivalent access to both paratracheal basins, thus uniquely facilitating safe and comprehensive CND. Though feasible and safe, CND via TONS is not appropriate in all cases. CND via TONS should only be performed with concomitant transoral total thyroidectomy, either prophylactically if the surgeon routinely performs prophylactic CND, or therapeutically if there is newly found evidence of nodal metastasis in the central compartment at the time of surgery. We base these recommendations on both the recent American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) consensus statement for indications for transcervical CND and the baseline indications for TONS.