2016
DOI: 10.21037/tcr.2016.12.62
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy: current state of the art—a systematic literature review and results of a bi-center study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
25
0
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The clinical evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that a sublingual approach may not be appropriate due to many complications which occurred. In particular, some infections were observed in certain series (10,12). In the literature review, there was no infection in the oral vestibular approach.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The clinical evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that a sublingual approach may not be appropriate due to many complications which occurred. In particular, some infections were observed in certain series (10,12). In the literature review, there was no infection in the oral vestibular approach.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…To ensure patients' safety, clinical evidence is the most important matter of concern before widespread use of that technique. For transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy, there were many studies in animals and cadavers before application to clinical practice (8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15). The transoral approach is to operate from the mouth which is contaminated with many bacteria, to the neck, which is the sterile area.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Authors whom had completed ten or more cases endoscopically were considered to be high volume, while all articles with human robotic cases were reviewed given the relatively limited amount of literature. Publications that did not give formal inclusion or exclusion criteria for their cohort were excluded (33,37). Inclusion and exclusion criteria for each of these studies were then reviewed and compiled.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%