Aesthetic principles access thyroidectomy produces the best cosmetic outcomes as assessed using the patient and observer scar assessment scale

Xiao Ma, Qi-Jun Xia, Guojun Li, Tian-Xiao Wang, Qin Li, Xiao Ma, Qi-Jun Xia, Guojun Li, Tian-Xiao Wang, Qin Li

Abstract

Background: Thyroid carcinoma (TC) is more likely to occur in young women. The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic effect of different thyroidectomies.

Methods: One hundred twenty female patients who underwent thyroidectomy were evenly distributed into three groups: conventional access (CA), aesthetic principles access (APA) and minimally invasive access (MIA). The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) was used as the assessment tool for the linear scar.

Results: The patients in the MIA group showed significantly less intraoperative blood loss, less drainage, a shorter scar length and a shorter duration of drainage than those in the CA group and the APA group. However, the operation time of 129.0 min in the MIA group was significantly longer than the 79.6 min in the CA group and the 77.0 min in the APA group. The best aesthetic score, as assessed by the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS), was obtained in the APA group. The Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) scores were significantly lower in the APA group and CA group than in the MIA group. Significantly lower objective scar ratings were found in the APA group than in the other two groups.

Conclusion: These results show that APA produced the best surgical outcomes in TC patients, indicating that conventional thyroidectomy can produce an ideal aesthetic result using the principles of aesthetic surgery. Thyroid surgery need not be performed through excessively short incisions for the sake of patient satisfaction with the scar's appearance.

Trial registration: This clinical trial was retrospectively registered on ClinicalTrials.gov PRS on August 1st,2017 ( NCT03239769 ).

Keywords: Aesthetic principle; Minimally invasive access; POSAS; Thyroid surgery; Thyroidectomy.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Peking University Cancer Hospital. All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of Peking University Cancer Hospital and/or the national research committee, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Before collecting human samples, all participants signed informed consent forms according to our institutional guidelines.

Consent for publication

Written informed consent for publication of their clinical details and/or clinical images was obtained from the patient/parent/guardian/ relative of the patient. A copy of the consent form is available for review by the Editor of this journal.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Digital images obtained from the patients after surgery. a: Conventional access thyroidectomy (CA); b: Aesthetic principles access thyroidectomy (APA); c: Minimally invasive access thyroidectomy(MIA)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Comparison of the Patient and Observer Assessment Scale scores

References

    1. Ghossein R, Ganly I, Biagini A, Robenshtok E, Rivera M, Tuttle RM. Prognostic factors in papillary microcarcinoma with emphasis on histologic subtyping: a clinicopathologic study of 148 cases. Thyroid. 2014;24:245–253. doi: 10.1089/thy.2012.0645.
    1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893–2917. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25516.
    1. Sciuto R, Romano L, Rea S, Marandino F, Sperduti I, Maini CL. Natural history and clinical outcome of differentiated thyroid carcinoma: a retrospective analysis of 1503 patients treated at a single institution. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1728–1735. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp050.
    1. Lang BH, Wong CK, Tsang JS, Wong KP, Wan KY. A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating completeness and outcomes of robotic thyroidectomy. Laryngoscope. 2015;125:509–518. doi: 10.1002/lary.24946.
    1. Lee HY, You JY, Woo SU, Son GS, Lee JB, Bae JW, et al. Transoral periosteal thyroidectomy: cadaver to human. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:898–904. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3749-6.
    1. Landry CS, Grubbs EG, Perrier ND. Bilateral robotic-assisted transaxillary surgery. Arch Surg. 2010;145:717–720. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.2010.117.
    1. Cai Q, Huang XM, Sun W, Zheng YQ, Liang FY, Han P, et al. Gasless video-assisted bilateral thyroidectomy by the anterior chest wall approach : 4 years of experience. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:255–259. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e3182508380.
    1. Dralle H, Machens A, Thanh PN. Minimally invasive compared with concentional thyroidectomy for nodular goitre. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;28:589–599. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2013.12.002.
    1. Kim SM, Chun KW, Chang HJ, Kim BW, Lee YS, Chang HS, et al. Reducing neck incision length during thyroid surgery does not improve satisfaction in patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;272:2433–2438. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3150-z.
    1. Dziegielewski PT, O’Connell DA, Rieger J, et al. The lip-splitting mandibulotomy: aesthetic and functional outcomes. Oral Oncol. 2010;46:612–617. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2010.05.006.
    1. American Thyroid Association (ATA) Guidelines Taskforce on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Cooper DS, Doherty GM, Haugen BR, Kloos RT, Lee SL, et al. Revised American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer. Thyroid. 2009;19:1167–1214. doi: 10.1089/thy.2009.0110.
    1. Chae JK, Kim JH, Kim EJ, Park K. Values of a patient and observer scar assessment scale to evaluate the facial skin graft scar. Ann Dermatol. 2016;28:615–623. doi: 10.5021/ad.2016.28.5.615.
    1. Stavrou D, Haik J, Weissman O, Goldan O, Tessone A, Winkler E. Patient and observer scar assessment scale: how good is it? J Wound Care. 2009;18:171–176. doi: 10.12968/jowc.2009.18.4.41610.
    1. Wickham JE, Kellett MJ, Miller RA. Elective percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 50 patients: an analysis of the technique, results and complications. J Urol. 1983;129:904–906. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)52450-7.
    1. Miccoli P, Berti P, Raffaelli M, Materazzi G, Baldacci S, Rossi G. Comparison between minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and conventional thyroidectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surgery. 2001;130:1039–1043. doi: 10.1067/msy.2001.118264.
    1. Bellantone R, Lombardi CP, Bossola M, Boscherini M, De Crea C, Alesina PF, et al. Video-assisted vs conventional thyroid lobectomy: a randomized control trial. Arch Surg. 2002;137:301–304. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.137.3.301.
    1. O’Connell DA, Diamond C, Seikaly H, Harris JR. Objective and subjective scar aesthetics in minimal access vs conventional access parathyroidectomy and thyroidectomy surgical procedures: a paired cohort study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134:85–93. doi: 10.1001/archotol.134.1.85.
    1. Toll EC, Loizou P, Davis CR, Porter GC, Pothier DD. Scars and satisfaction: do smaller scars improve patient-reported outcome? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269:309–313. doi: 10.1007/s00405-011-1613-z.
    1. Janis JE, Harrison B. Wound healing: part I. Basic science. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:199e–207e. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000437224.02985.f9.
    1. Slepavicius A, Beisa V, Janusonis V, Strupas K. Focused versus conventional parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism: a prospective, randomized, blinded trial. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2008;393:659–666. doi: 10.1007/s00423-008-0408-1.
    1. Mow CS, Woolson ST, Ngarmukos SG, Park EH, Lorenz HP. Comparison of scars from total hip replacements done with a standard or a mini-incision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:80–85. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000191317.85422.c3.
    1. Lang BH, Chan DT, Chow FC. Visualizing fewer parathyroid glands may be associated with lower hypoparathyroidism following total thyroidectomy. Langenbeck's Arch Surg. 2016;401:231–238. doi: 10.1007/s00423-016-1386-3.
    1. Bliss RD, Gauger PG, Delbridge LW. Surgeon’s approach to the thyroid gland: surgical anatomy and the importance of technique. World J Surg. 2000;24:891–897. doi: 10.1007/s002680010173.
    1. Daher R, Lifante JC, Voirin N, Peix JL, Colin C, Kraimps JL, et al. Is it possible to limit the risks of thyroid surgery? Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2015;76(1 Suppl 1):1S16–1S26. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4266(16)30010-5.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi