Search

We present the long-term cosmetic results of the video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) in comparison to the conventional operation. Forty-eight patients (four males, 44 females; mean age 47.4 ± 12.5 years) constituted the video-assisted group (VA-Group). These were compared with 48 patients (10 males, 38 females; mean age 47.4 ± 12.5 years) operated by conventional surgery (C-Group). The patients were selected from all thyroid operations performed between January 2016 and June 2017. Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS) were used for the evaluation performed by an independent surgeon. Both scales contained six items scored numerically on a ten-step scale ranging from 1 (normal skin) to 10 (worst result). Moreover, photos of all scars were taken and analyzed by six team surgeons using modified OSAS. The mean follow-up time was 31.7 ± 6.4 months for the MIVAT group and 32.9 ± 4.6 months for the conventional group (p = 0.39). The mean scar length in the VA-Group was 2.6 cm vs. 3.8 cm in the C-Group (p < 0.0001). The total score of PSAS was 9.93 (6–35) for MIVAT and 9.72 (6–29) for conventional thyroidectomy (p = 0.22). The total OSAS score by the independent surgeon showed a better cosmetic outcome for conventional surgery (13.19 vs. 12.33; p = 0.01). The total OSAS score by the six team surgeons did not differ between both groups in five of six ratings; one surgeon favored MIVAT (12.2 vs. 13.6; p = 0.04). This study does not find cosmetic advantages of minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy compared to conventional thyroidectomy.

We present the long-term cosmetic results of the video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) in comparison to the conventional operation.Forty-eight patients (four males, 44 females; mean age 47.4 ± 12.5 years) constituted the video-assisted group (VA-Group). These were compared with 48 patients (10 males, 38 females; mean age 47.4 ± 12.5 years) operated by conventional surgery (C-Group). The patients were selected from all thyroid operations performed between January 2016 and June 2017. Patient Scar Assessment Scale (PSAS) and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (OSAS) were used for the evaluation performed by an independent surgeon. Both scales contained six items scored numerically on a ten-step scale ranging from 1 (normal skin) to 10 (worst result). Moreover, photos of all scars were taken and analyzed by six team surgeons using modified OSAS.The mean follow-up time was 31.7 ± 6.4 months for the MIVAT group and 32.9 ± 4.6 months for the conventional group (p = 0.39). The mean scar length in the VA-Group was 2.6 cm vs. 3.8 cm in the C-Group (p0.0001). The total score of PSAS was 9.93 (6-35) for MIVAT and 9.72 (6-29) for conventional thyroidectomy (p = 0.22). The total OSAS score by the independent surgeon showed a better cosmetic outcome for conventional surgery (13.19 vs. 12.33; p = 0.01). The total OSAS score by the six team surgeons did not differ between both groups in five of six ratings; one surgeon favored MIVAT (12.2 vs. 13.6; p = 0.04).This study does not find cosmetic advantages of minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy compared to conventional thyroidectomy.