Comparison of surgical outcomes of Ultrasonic technique (Harmonic Focus™) with Conventional technique in open hemithyroidectomy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3126/jkmc.v2i4.11774Keywords:
Haemostasis, Harmonic Focus™, Hemithyroidectomy, Conventional techniqueAbstract
Background: The option for dissection and haemostasis during thyroid surgery include either the modern ultrasonic technology (Harmonic Focus™) or the conventional technique using knot and ties, monopolar or bipolar electrocautery. Comparison between the surgical outcomes of open hemithyroidectomy using these two modalities was done.
Objective: To compare the surgical outcomes of ultrasonic technique using Harmonic Focus™ (HS) with Conventional technique (CT) in open hemithyoidectomy.
Method: Twenty consecutive patients undergoing open hemithyroidectomy for benign solitary thyroid nodule of ≤ 3 cm were randomly assigned into two groups; group HS (n=10) and group CT (n=10). Analysis of surgical outcomes performed by these two techniques, particularly: operative time, intra-operative blood loss, post operative pain, incision size, complications and hospital stay were done.
Results: The age, sex and pathologies were comparable in both the groups. For the group HS, mean operative time was (mean ± SD=55 ± 5 min) 15 minutes shorter than group CT (mean ± SD= 70 ± 10 min) (P<0.01). Mean operative blood loss was (mean ± SD=20 ±10 ml) 16 ml less in group HS than CT (mean ± SD= 36 ±12 ml) (P<0.01). The group HS experienced less post operative pain (mean ± SD=4 ± 0.94 VAS) than CT (mean ± SD= 7 ± 0.81 VAS) (P<0.001). The incision size at the time of skin closure was 1.6 cm shorter in group HS ((mean ± SD= 3.95 ±0.61 vs. 5.5 ± 0.78cm) (P<0.01). Hospital stay (mean ± SD= 2.30 ± 0.48 vs. 4.20 ±0.42 days) was statistically significant (P<0.01) in group HS than CT. There were no major complications.
Conclusion: In patients undergoing open hemithyroidectomy, HS is a faster, better cosmetic, safe and less morbid tool than CT. Its use reduces operative time, blood loss, post operative pain, scar size, along with hospital stay.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jkmc.v2i4.11774
Journal of Kathmandu Medical College
Vol. 2, No. 4, Issue 6, Oct.-Dec., 2013
Page: 175-180
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright © Journal of Kathmandu Medical College
The ideas and opinions expressed by authors or articles summarized, quoted, or published in full text in this journal represent only the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of Journal of Kathmandu Medical College or the institute with which the author(s) is/are affiliated, unless so specified.
Authors convey all copyright ownership, including any and all rights incidental thereto, exclusively to JKMC, in the event that such work is published by JKMC. JKMC shall own the work, including 1) copyright; 2) the right to grant permission to republish the article in whole or in part, with or without fee; 3) the right to produce preprints or reprints and translate into languages other than English for sale or free distribution; and 4) the right to republish the work in a collection of articles in any other mechanical or electronic format.
