Minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy compared with conventional thyroidectomy in a general surgery department.

Background We retrospectively evaluated a series of patients who underwent minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) to define its advantages or disadvantages. Methods Between May 2005 and March 2008, 68 patients underwent MIVAT. Sixty-nine patients who underwent conventional thyroidectomy (CT) during the period before the introduction of the MIVAT technique in our department—chosen with the same inclusion criteria used for MIVAT—served as matched controls. The eligibility criteria for both groups was thyroid nodules B35 mm, thyroid volume \25 ml, no thyroiditis, and no previous surgery. Results Forty-five MIVAT and 43 CT patients underwent hemithyroidectomy. Twenty-three MIVAT and 26 CT patients underwent total thyroidectomy. No differences were found in terms of complications, operative time, and radicality of the procedure. Patients who underwent MIVAT experienced significantly less pain, better cosmetic results, and shorter hospital stay than patients who underwent conventional surgery Conclusion The MIVAT technique, in selected patients, seems to be a valid option for thyroidectomy and even preferable to conventional surgery because of its significant advantages, especially in terms of cosmetic results, postoperative pain, and postoperative recovery.