There continues to be large variation in margin policy and re-excision rates across units. Altering margin policies to follow either SSO-ASTRO or ABS guidelines would result in a modest reduction in the national re-excision rate. Most re-excisions are for involved margins rather than close margins.
INTRODUCTION Multiple surgical approaches to the thyroid gland have been described via cervical or extracervical routes. Improved cosmesis, patient satisfaction, reduced pain (procedure dependent) and early discharge have all been reported for minimally invasive approaches with similar safety profiles and long-term outcomes to conventional surgery. This review summarises the current evidence base for improved cosmesis with minimally invasive cervical approaches to the thyroid gland compared with conventional surgery. METHODS A systematic review was undertaken. The MEDLINE ® , Embase™ and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles. RESULTS A total of 57 papers thyroid papers were identified. Of those, 20 reported some form of cosmetic outcome assessment. There were 6 randomised controlled trials with 412 patients (evidence level 2B), 7 cohort studies with 3,073 patients (level 3B) and 7 non-comparative case series with 1,575 patients (level 4). There was significant heterogeneity between studies in terms of wound closure technique, timing of scar assessment and scar assessment scales (validated and non-validated). Most studies performed early scar assessments, some using non-validated scar assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS Assessment of cosmesis is complex and requires rigorous methodology. Evidence from healing/remodelling studies suggests scar maturation is a long-term process. This calls into question the value of early scar assessment. Current evidence does not support minimally invasive surgical approaches to the thyroid gland if improved long-term cosmesis is the goal.
KEYWORDSThyroidectomy -Minimally invasive video assisted thyroidectomy -Scar -Cosmesis
BackgroundAcute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdominal pain with an incidence of 1.17 per 1000 and lifetime risk of approximately 7%. It remains the most common indication for emergency abdominal surgery in childhood. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis is particularly difficult in young women and the pediatric population. In the USA, CT imaging is used to avert diagnostic dilemma, however the procedure is associated with radiation risk in this vulnerable population. Additionally, the procedure has high cost and variable availability.MethodsA retrospective study involving all suspected pediatric cases of appendicitis between the ages of 5 and 17 who were operated on between 2012 and 2015 was carried out. Data were collated from clinical notes on age, sex, ultrasound findings; postoperative complications, white cell count, neutrophils, C-reactive protein, histology result, and number of days to theater. All patients in the time period were retrospectively scored on the Alvarado and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) scores.ResultsA total of 239 patients between 11 and 17 (mean 13.6±SE) years of age were included in the study. Of these, 79 had preoperative ultrasound, of which 52 were negative, and only one patient had CT scan. 213 of the patients had an appendicectomy and 26 had diagnostic laparoscopy with no appendicectomy. Of the 213 appendixes removed, 71 were histopathologically normal, giving a negative appendectomy rate of 33.3%. 28 appendixes were perforated. The average number of days from admission to theater was 1.0 SE in males and 1.424 in females (p=0.0498). The average number of days from admission to theater in those who had ultrasound was 2.03 days compared with 0.75 in those who did not have ultrasound (p<0.0001). AIR scoring that was high and medium risk showed slightly lower negative appendicectomy rates but not significantly different.ConclusionsOur study has found no significant difference between the AIR scores and Alvarado. There is a role for scoring systems to be used to aid in the decision to undergo imaging and as an adjunct to clinical diagnosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.