Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of high-energy devices for thyroid surgery.

background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the role of High Energy Devices (HEDs) versus conventional clamp and tie technique in thyroidectomy. This work is endorsed by the Italian Society of Surgical Endoscopy (Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies—SICE) in the broader project on the evaluation of the role of HEDs in different surgical settings with the full health technology assessment report. Mehods: Inclusion criteria were adult patients (≥ 18 years old) undergoing Thyroidectomy/Parathyroidectomy conducted with High Energy Devices (as ultrasonic (US), radiofrequency (RF), and hybrid energy (H-US/RF)) in the setting of thyroid surgery (both partial and total) for benign and malign diseases. However, some variability was found in included studies and described in the text. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews, and the recommendations of the 2020 updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were pursuit. Selection of abstracts was performed in Ryyan system by 2 independent reviewers, and doubts were solved by another independent reviewer. At the end of literature research, Randomized controlled trials and observational studies were included. Risk of Bias was assessed with ROB2 for RCTs, and New Castle Ottawa Scale for Observational studies. Results: The literature search yielded 47 studies, including 29 RCTs and 18 observational studies. Meta-analysis was performed for 29 randomized clinical trials. Outcomes included in the comparison between High Energy Devise and conventional technique groups were operative time, operative blood loss, overall post-operative drainage volume, length of stay, complications, and costs. HED significantly reduced operative time (28 studies, 3097patients; MD -128.8; 95% CI -34.4 to -23.20; I2 = 96%, p < 0.00001, Random-effect), intra-operative blood loss (13 studies, 642 vs 519 patients; SMD -0.82; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.32; I2 = 93%, p < 0.00001, Random-effect), LOS (22 studies, 2808 vs 2789 patients; MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.17; I2 = 98%, p < 0.00001 Random-effect), and healthcare costs (8 studies, 1138 vs 1129 patients, SMD 1.05; 95% CI -0.06 to 2.16; I2 = 99%, p < 0.00001 Random-effect). The rate of overall intraoperative complications was significantly different between both groups (25 studies, 2804 vs 2775 patients; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; I2 = 38%, p = 0.03 Random-effect), but the sensitivity analysis did not find a statistically significant difference (6 studies, 605 vs 594 patients, RR; 95% CI to; I2 = 0%, p = 0.50, Random-effect). There was no difference in the subgroup analysis for the occurrence of transient and permanent RLN palsy, nor hematoma formation and hypocalcaemia. Discussion: Though findings of our systematic review and metanalysis are limited by heterogeneous data, surgeons, hospital managers, and policymakers should note that the use of High Energy Devices compared to conventional clamp and tie technique have reduced operative times, intra-operative blood loss, length of stay, and hospital costs in patients underwent to tyroid surgery. Future work must explore issues of equity to mitigate barriers to patient access to safe thyroid surgical care and define better this initial results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]