Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Mar 22;19(3):e0300604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300604

The feasibility and clinical significance of lateral approach thyroidectomy

Ran An 1,2,#, Yong-Xue Gu 2,#, Xi-Hao Ni 1, Ying Lei 2, Wei-Tao Wang 1, Xiao-Juan Men 2, Jing-Yi Ma 1, Chang-Liang Wang 2,*
Editor: Antonino Maniaci3
PMCID: PMC10959362  PMID: 38517866

Abstract

Background

By comparing the three lateral approaches to thyroidectomy, the feasibility and clinical effects were analyzed, and the advantages of the lateral approach were summarized.

Methods

From January 2022 to January 2023, 52 patients with thyroid cancer admitted to our department were selected and subjected to Lateral approach for thyroidectomy. Among them, 31 patients underwent thyroidectomy via the supraclavicular approach, 13 patients underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy via the subclavicular approach, and 8 patients underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy via the axillary approach. The basic conditions, surgical conditions, complications, postoperative pain scores and postoperative satisfaction of patients in the three approach surgery groups were recorded and analyzed.

Results

There were no significant differences among the three approach groups in terms of patient characteristics, number of central lymph node dissections, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of drainage tube placement, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, satisfaction, and complications. However, the operation time was longest in the subclavicular approach group, followed by the axillary approach group, and shortest in the supraclavicular approach group. The total hospitalization cost was highest in the axillary approach group, followed by the subclavicular approach group, and lowest in the supraclavicular approach group.

Conclusion

The lateral approach for thyroidectomy is deemed a safe and effective method. The three different approach paths gradually increase in length, allowing for the accumulation of anatomical experience. This approach has a shorter learning curve for clinical doctors and is a favorable choice for patients seeking aesthetic benefits.

1 Introduction

As people increasingly prioritize health checkups and thyroid ultrasound technology becomes more widespread, the detection rate of thyroid cancer continues to rise. Thyroid cancer is a prevalent malignancy primarily treated through surgery [1]. In recent years, thyroid cancer has been more commonly diagnosed in younger female patients, who often place a higher value on aesthetic outcomes [2]. Traditional neck incisions can impact appearance, particularly in patients with a predisposition to scarring. For some young, unmarried patients, this can create significant psychological burden. In addition to traditional open surgery, current surgical approaches include transoral, submental, retroauricular, supraclavicular, subclavicular, axillary, and breast approaches [3]. This study examines the lateral approach for thyroid surgery, which encompasses open surgery through an oblique incision above the clavicle and endoscopic surgery through the subclavicular and axillary approaches. The introduction of endoscopic technology has enabled more concealed incisions and precise surgery. This approach is conducive to central lymph node dissection, as well as technical challenges such as protecting the recurrent laryngeal nerve and parathyroid glands. However, it is only suitable for unilateral thyroid surgery [4, 5]. The lateral approach is associated with minimal trauma, and the approach path gradually lengthens from the supraclavicular to the subclavicular and axillary (Fig 1), resulting in a progressive accumulation of anatomical experience. As such, this approach has a shorter learning curve for clinical doctors and may increase the success rate for beginners. This study aims to evaluate and summarize the advantages of the lateral approach by comparing the feasibility and clinical outcomes of three different approaches for thyroid surgery, with the ultimate goal of maximizing patient benefits.

Fig 1. The lateral approach progresses from the supraclavicular region to the subclavicular region and further to the axilla, passing through the natural gap between the clavicular head and sternal head of sternocleidomastoid muscle, with the pathway gradually increasing in length.

Fig 1

2 Materials and methods

2.1 General information

Fifty-two patients diagnosed with thyroid cancer who were admitted to Weifang People’s Hospital between January 2022 and January 2023 were included in this study. The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Weifang Medical University (Approval No. 2023YX134). Among them, 31 underwent thyroidectomy via the supraclavicular approach, 13 underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy via the subclavicular approach, and 8 underwent endoscopic thyroidectomy via the axillary approach. Of the 52 patients, 8 were male and 44 were female, with an age range of 31–50 years. Inclusion criteria were: absence of neck radiation history; ultrasound indicating a nodule located within a single lobe of the thyroid gland without invasion of the thyroid gland; no significant abnormalities in preoperative blood routine and coagulation routine; fine-needle aspiration biopsy indicating papillary thyroid carcinoma, and imaging not showing lymph node metastasis in the neck region; no serious cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, and tolerable cardiac and pulmonary function; and signed informed consent from all patients. Exclusion criteria were: the presence of evidence of lateral neck lymph node metastasis based on needle biopsy; ultrasound indications of bilateral thyroid nodules requiring total thyroidectomy; presence of other malignant tumors; abnormal coagulation function; serious cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases; and inability to cooperate with treatment.

2.2 Methods

2.2.1 Surgical equipment

The surgical equipment used in this study included a high-definition laparoscopic display system (OLYMPUS EVIS EXERA Ⅲ CV-190), an ultrasonic scalpel (Johnson & Johnson ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY GEN11 Generator), a high-frequency electric scalpel (ERBE VIO300S), and a recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring system (inomed Medizintechnik GmbH C2 NerveMonitor). Instruments used in laparoscopic procedures include an electrocoagulation hook, a suspension hook, non-traumatic grasping forceps, separation forceps, tissue scissors, needle holders, vessel sealing devices, specimen retrieval bags, and others, provided by Hangzhou Tonglu Yida Medical Appliance And Equipment CO.LTD.

2.2.2 Surgical technique

All patients underwent endotracheal intubation under general anesthesia and were placed in a supine position with a pillow under their shoulders and their head tilted back. For the subclavicular and axillary endoscopic approaches, the patient’s head was slightly turned to the opposite side, while for the axillary approach, the ipsilateral upper limb was externally rotated by 90°.

  1. Supraclavicular approach: At 1 cm above the clavicle, a curved incision approximately 5 cm in length was made. Along the deep surface of the platysma muscle, a skin flap was dissected, extending from the thyroid cartilage above to the upper margin of the sternum below. Using a thyroid retractor, the skin flap was pulled open. The dissection extended between the sternal and clavicular heads of the sternocleidomastoid muscle, opening the strap muscles, and exposing the thyroid for thyroid surgery (including pre-tracheal and central compartment lymph node dissection).

  2. Subclavicular approach: A 4 cm incision was made below the clavicle, and a trocar was inserted for endoscopic visualization. The subcutaneous tissue was separated, and the sternocleidomastoid muscle was exposed using an ultrasonic scalpel. The natural gap between the clavicular head and sternal head of sternocleidomastoid muscle was explored and separated, and the space was enlarged using a hook. The dissection is performed between the internal jugular vein and the lateral border of the sternocleidomastoid muscle, with the strap muscle freed on its deep surface, exposing the thyroid for thyroid surgery.

  3. Gasless transaxillary approach: A 4 cm incision was made at the second axillary fold, and a trocar was inserted at the intersection of the anterior axillary line and the edge of the breast. The thyroid gland was exposed for surgery under endoscopic visualization, and the surgical steps were the same as those for the subclavicular approach. A special suspension hook was used to assist in the exposure of the space.

During surgery, meticulous dissection was performed to protect the parathyroid glands and recurrent laryngeal nerves, and hemostasis was carefully performed. The surgical field was irrigated, a drainage tube was placed at the incision site, and negative pressure drainage was applied. The incision was closed using 4–0 absorbable sutures.

2.3 Observational indicators

2.3.1 Basic information such as age, gender, body mass index, tumor size, and number of dissected lymph nodes were collected for the three groups of patients.

2.3.2 The surgical situations were observed and compared among the three groups, including the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of drainage tube placement, length of hospital stay, and total hospitalization costs.

2.3.3 The incidence of complications was observed and compared among the three groups, including transient hoarseness, transient hypoparathyroidism, dysphagia, bleeding, infection, and chyle leakage.

2.3.4 Postoperative pain was evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS), with a total score of 10 points and a lower score indicating less pain. Pain scores were recorded on the first and third postoperative days.

2.3.5 Patients were followed up for three months after surgery to evaluate their satisfaction, including swallowing function, skin sensation, and incisional appearance, based on subjective evaluation using a 5-point scale: 1 (very satisfied), 2 (satisfied), 3 (fair), 4 (dissatisfied), and 5 (very dissatisfied).

2.4 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 software. Box plots were generated using GraphPad Prism 8. Continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (`x±s). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for normally distributed data, and non-parametric tests were used for data with non-uniform variances. Categorical data were presented as frequency (n) and percentage (%), and the chi-square test was used for intergroup comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3 Results

All patients in the three surgical groups underwent the operations successfully.

3.1 Comparison of patients baseline characteristics

This study included a total of 52 patients, comprising 8 males and 44 females, with ages ranging from 31 to 50 years and a mean age of (41.75±9.27) years. No patient in any group was obese or underweight. There were no statistically significant differences in age, body mass index, or tumor size among the three surgical groups (P>0.05). Moreover, the number of central lymph nodes removed was also comparable among the groups (P>0.05), indicating that the efficacy of central lymph node dissection was similar for all three approaches. See Table 1 for details.

Table 1. Comparison of baseline characteristics of patients in three surgical approach groups (`x±s).

Variables Supraclavicular Subclavicular Axillary F value P value
Sex (Male/Female) 6/25 2/11 0/8 - -
Age (years) 40.42±8.84 43.62±7.68 43.88±13.05 0.786 0.461
BMI (kg/m2) 23.18±2.81 24.07±2.72 23.64±2.18 0.516 0.600
Tumor size (mm) 11.39±12.4 8.41±9.95 18.38±11.86 1.799 0.176
Number of lymph nodes 3.71±1.19 4.23±0.83 3.50±1.31 1.322 0.276

3.2 Comparison of patients’ surgical situations

The operation time was defined as the duration from skin incision to closure, which was significantly longer in the group undergoing the subclavicular approach, followed by the axillary approach, and the supraclavicular approach had the shortest duration (P<0.05). Minimal bleeding occurred in all three groups during the surgery, and there were no significant differences in the amount of bleeding, drainage volume, duration of drainage tube placement, or length of hospital stay (P>0.05). The total hospitalization cost was highest in the axillary approach group, followed by the subclavicular approach group, and lowest in the supraclavicular approach group, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). See Table 2 for details. Additionally, we have graphed statistically significant box plots for operation time and total hospitalization cost, as detailed in Fig 2. The box plots distinctly illustrate the previously mentioned findings. However, it is essential to note that our sample size is relatively small, which may introduce uncertainty into the results.

Table 2. Presents the comparison of surgical parameters among the three surgical approach groups (`x±s).

Variables Supraclavicular Subclavicular Axillary F/x2 value P value
Operation time(min) 86.06±16.76 171.77±45.78 156.00±38.74 27.211 <0.001
Blood loss(ml) 12.26±5.95 11.62±1.26 11.38±1.06 0.158 0.854
Day 1 drainage volume(ml) 41.29±20.45 51.92±14.22 51.88±29.39 1.644 0.204
Total drainage volume(ml) 53.94±24.46 72.85±15.10 73.13±48.25 3.000 0.059
Duration of drainage tube placement(d) 2.68±0.48 2.69±0.48 2.75±0.46 0.074 0.928
Length of hospital stay(d) 6.52±1.03 6.85±1.07 7.25±1.28 1.609 0.210
Total hospitalization cost(CNY) 18431.71±3044.48 23839.23±905.11 24170.13±1089.93 36.659 <0.001

Fig 2. Box plots for operation time and total hospitalization cost among three surgical approach groups.

Fig 2

3.3 Comparison of postoperative complications

No patients in any group experienced wound bleeding (including incision oozing or hematoma), wound infection, or chyle leakage. Only one patient in the group with the supraclavicular approach above the clavicle experienced transient hoarseness, which was treated with nutritional nerve therapy and gradually recovered within one month of follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups (P>0.05). Postoperative transient hypoparathyroidism may occur, including varying degrees of lip and hand numbness, which can be restored to normal by administering calcium gluconate. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups (P>0.05). The incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and hypoparathyroidism was very low, possibly due to meticulous dissection. Other thyroid surgery-related complications did not occur. See Table 3 for details.

Table 3. Comparison of complications among the three approaches (`x±s).

Variables Supraclavicular(n = 31) Subclavicular(n = 13) Axillary(n = 8) x2 value P value
hoarseness (transient) 1 (3.2%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 0.691 0.708
Hypoparathyroidism (transient) 2 (6.5%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 1.409 0.494
Water choking 0 0 0 - -
Bleeding 0 0 0 - -
Infection 0 0 0 - -
Chyle leakage 0 0 0 - -
Others 0 0 0 - -

3.4 Comparison of pain scores at different time points

The incisional pain was significant in all three groups on the first day after surgery, but was basically relieved by the third day after surgery without severe pain. The VAS score decreased in all groups, and there was no statistically significant difference (P>0.05). See Table 4 for details.

Table 4. Incision pain score at different time points after surgery in the three groups (`x±s).

Variables Supraclavicular Subclavicular Axillary F value P value
Postoperative day 1 2.58±0.50 2.54±0.52 2.63±0.52 0.074 0.929
Postoperative day 3 1.00 1.00 1.00 - -

3.5 Comparison of patient satisfaction at 3 months postoperatively

After a 3-month follow-up, including evaluation of swallowing function, skin sensation, and incision appearance, the overall satisfaction rate was 100% in all three groups of patients who underwent surgery via the supraclavicular, infraclavicular, and axillary approaches, and the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). See Table 5 for details.

Table 5. Comparison of patient satisfaction among three surgical approaches at 3 months postoperatively[n (%)].

Variables Supraclavicular (n = 31) Subclavicular(n = 13) Axillary(n = 8) x2 value P value
Very satisfied (1 points) 29(93.5%) 13(100%) 8(100%) 1.409 0.494
Satisfied (2 points) 2 (6.5%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%)
Fair (3 points) 0 0 0 - -
Unsatisfied (4 points) 0 0 0 - -
Very unsatisfied (5 points) 0 0 0 - -
Overall satisfaction (≤3 points) 31(100%) 13(100%) 8(100%) - -

Note: Overall satisfaction was evaluated based on the total score, with a score of 1–3 indicating satisfaction and a score of 4–5 indicating dissatisfaction.

4 Discussion

Thyroid surgery has always been a concern for patients, with the appearance of the incision becoming a focus of attention for thyroid surgeons. Technological advances have led to the development of various surgical approaches, including lateral approaches and those through artificial cavities such as the mouth, chest, and breast, to achieve better cosmetic results. Currently, common hidden incision surgical approaches include oral, submental, retroauricular, supraclavicular, subclavicular, axillary, and breast routes [3]. Endoscopic thyroid surgery, which has been developed over the past 20 years, has been recognized for its safety and feasibility, with undeniable cosmetic benefits. The magnification effect of the endoscope during surgery allows for clearer and more precise identification and manipulation of the parathyroid and recurrent laryngeal nerves. This, coupled with meticulous dissection techniques, results in precise operations, leading to low complication rates. However, each surgical approach has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of safety, cosmetic results, and trauma [3, 6]. Although hidden incision approaches conceal the incision, they may result in increased endoscopic surgery time and hospitalization costs, and require higher proficiency in surgeons and instrument requirements [7]. Lateral approaches are only suitable for unilateral lesions [5]. In addition, the carbon dioxide required for insufflation may have adverse effects on hemodynamics and blood gas levels, such as hypercapnia, acidosis, and decreased mean arterial and central venous pressure [8]. Oral routes have risks of facial paralysis, lip movement disorders, etc., and change the incision from a class I to a class II incision, increasing the risk of infection in patients [9]. Open surgery, as a classic surgical technique, is intuitive, concise, and thorough, and is suitable for all thyroid surgeries. At present, there is no new surgical technique that can replace its role and status [10].

The lateral approach to thyroid surgery includes open surgery through an oblique incision above the clavicle and endoscopic surgery through the subclavicular and axillary approaches. Studies have shown that for patients who require a second operation due to tumor recurrence, the lateral approach is superior to the traditional anterior approach in terms of surgical time, blood loss, and complications, as it avoids the disadvantages of the latter approach caused by the disorder of normal anatomical structures and scar tissue proliferation [11]. However, this approach is only suitable for unilateral thyroid surgery, and for patients with abundant neck fat or developed muscles, the exposure space for surgical operations is relatively poor, increasing the difficulty of the operation [5]. ①The open thyroidectomy via a oblique incision above the clavicle inherits the advantages of the simple and easy-to-learn open surgery, while ensuring the beauty of the incision by reducing the probability of scar tissue proliferation, since the skin tension above the clavicular fossa is smaller and the incision line is consistent with the skin texture [12]. Also, since the incision is deviated from the anterior neck, postoperative clothing or necklaces can cover the incision, achieving a certain degree of aesthetic requirement. ②The endoscopic thyroidectomy via an incision below the clavicle also follows the skin texture and uses the natural cavity to create a small surgical cavity, significantly reducing damage [13]. It also has minimal interference with the appearance of the neck, and does not require incision of the neck white line. After the surgery is completed, all anatomical structures can naturally return to their original positions, effectively protecting the patient’s neck sensation, reducing postoperative discomfort in swallowing, and avoiding neck-swallowing linkage [14]. In addition, the surgical incision is moved from the exposed neck to the covered clavicular area, concealing the wound and meeting the aesthetic needs of the patients. ③The transaxillary approach endoscopic thyroidectomy was initially described by Japanese scholar Ikeda in 2000 [15]. Subsequently, Yoon reported the first gasless transaxillary approach endoscopic thyroid surgery in 2006 [16]. Over the course of more than a decade, this surgical technique has undergone development and refinement, gradually earning recognition among professionals in the field. The incision is made in the armpit, resulting in no visible scars on the neck skin. Moreover, due to the surgical pathway, the patient’s anterior neck function area is effectively protected. This approach ensures comprehensive surgery while simultaneously offering both cosmetic and functional benefits for individuals with thyroid disorders [17].

4.1 Analysis of the number of central lymph nodes in the cleaning process

The lateral approach provides an inherent advantage in exposing the recurrent laryngeal nerve and anatomical structures such as the trachea and carotid artery [4]. However, due to the obstruction caused by the clavicle, the lower limit of the cleaning process can only reach the level of the upper edge of the innominate artery. Studies have shown that this range of cleaning is completely sufficient for N0 thyroid cancer patients, while for patients with suspicious lymph nodes below the innominate artery or in deeper areas, it is recommended to use the anterior approach [18]. According to the results of this study, there was no significant difference in the number of central lymph nodes cleaned among the three approaches, indicating that the effectiveness of cleaning the central lymph nodes was similar among the three surgical groups. As for their long-term recurrence rate, it is not yet clear due to the short follow-up period.

4.2 Analysis of operation time

Our study has revealed that the subclavicular approach took the longest time, followed by the axillary approach, and the supraclavicular approach was the shortest. Firstly, the use of two endoscopic approaches took more time compared to the supraclavicular approach. This was possibly due to the longer path and the need for separation. Moreover, endoscopic surgery is usually carried out by a single operator, which may increase surgical time due to limitations in assistance and lens cleaning. Secondly, the subclavicular approach took slightly longer than the axillary approach. This was likely due to the experience and proficiency accumulated through previous supraclavicular and subclavicular approach surgeries, laying the foundation for the axillary approach. Endoscopic thyroidectomy necessitates the surgeon to possess a strong proficiency in endoscopic techniques and a thorough knowledge of anatomy. The experience gained through the supraclavicular approach serves as a fundamental basis for the subclavicular and axillary approaches. In essence, the subclavicular and axillary approaches can be considered as extensions of the supraclavicular approach. Hence, the surgical techniques are interconnected, resulting in a shorter learning curve. The transoral approach requires the operator to adapt to and change their spatial perception due to the opposite surgical orientation compared to open surgery [9]. The trans-mammary approach requires the establishment of a longer tunnel in the chest and neck, which makes central lymph node dissection relatively difficult [19]. Therefore, we believe that the lateral approach has certain advantages for both physicians and patients.

4.3 Complication analysis

In our study, only one case of transient hoarseness occurred in the supraclavicular approach group, which was successfully managed with conservative treatment of the recurrent laryngeal nerve. The patient gradually recovered within one month of follow-up. The possible reasons for this complication may include thermal injury to the recurrent laryngeal nerve during ultrasonic scalpel use, traction-induced stimulation during surgery, and transient compression of the nerve due to postoperative edema of the surrounding tissues [20]. In addition, a few patients experienced transient symptoms of hypoparathyroidism, which were resolved with calcium and vitamin D supplementation. Although the postoperative symptoms caused by hypoparathyroidism were mild and short-term, it is important to pay close attention to them to prevent the potential risk of tetany [21]. In addition, there is an increased risk of vocal cord paralysis [22]. No severe complications occurred after surgery, indicating that the lateral approach for thyroid surgery is safe.

4.4 Satisfaction analysis

As thyroid cancer becomes more common among younger and female patients, there is a growing demand for cosmetic outcomes with high expectations. Traditional surgical incisions can leave scars on the neck, which can cause significant psychological burden, especially for patients with a tendency to form scars [2, 23]. In all three groups, patients recovered well after surgery, and the overall satisfaction rate at 3 months post-surgery was 100%. During the lateral approach, surgical access to the thyroid gland is achieved through the muscle interval between the clavicular head of the sternocleidomastoid muscle and the sternal head. This technique avoids the need for detaching a neck skin flap, eliminating the requirement for suturing the neck white line post-surgery. Furthermore, this approach minimizes disruption to the anterior neck muscles, resulting in reduced discomfort in the anterior neck region and no sensation of skin-trachea linkage during swallowing. As a result, the swallowing function of the anterior neck area is preserved [14, 24, 25]. There are no scars on the neck after surgery, and scars under the subclavicular and in the axilla can be completely covered, which can relieve patients’ psychological burden and achieve excellent cosmetic outcomes.

5 Conclusion

In conclusion, these results indirectly demonstrate that the three lateral approaches are equally feasible and effective in the treatment of unilateral thyroid carcinoma. Compared to conventional incisions, the lateral approaches provide satisfactory cosmetic outcomes. With the gradual increase in the length of the approach, a step-by-step approach and the accumulation of early anatomical experience, the success rate for beginners can be significantly increased, and most surgeons with traditional thyroidectomy experience can easily perform this technique with a shorter learning curve. Additionally, the lateral approaches directly access the area of the recurrent laryngeal nerve and the parathyroid gland, ensuring surgical effectiveness. However, this study has some limitations. Firstly, this incision is only suitable for unilateral thyroid surgery. Secondly, for patients with abundant neck fat or developed muscles, the surgical operation space exposure may be relatively poor, leading to increased surgical difficulty. Finally, the sample size of this study is relatively small, and the follow-up time is short. The exploration of this surgical approach is still a long way to go, and it is hoped that through continuous exploration and conducting large-scale, multicenter studies, it can achieve more widespread clinical applications.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(ZIP)

pone.0300604.s001.zip (1.7MB, zip)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by Weifang Health and Family Planning Commission (wfwsjs_2018_029). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Kobaly K, Kim CS, Mandel SJ. Contemporary Management of Thyroid Nodules. Annu Rev Med. 2022;73:517–528. doi: 10.1146/annurev-med-042220-015032 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Papaspyrou G, Ferlito A, Silver CE, et al. Extracervical approaches to endoscopic thyroid surgery. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(4):995–1003. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1341-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhang Z, Sun B, Ouyang H, Cong R, Xia F, Li X. Endoscopic Lateral Neck Dissection: A New Frontier in Endoscopic Thyroid Surgery. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:796984. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.796984 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ge JN, Yu ST, Sun BH, et al. A novel anatomy-based five-settlement method for endoscopic thyroid lobectomy and ipsilateral central compartment neck dissection via gasless unilateral axillary approach: a preliminary report. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1147313. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1147313 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Phan HH, Nguyen TH, Vo HL, Le NT, Tran NL. Single-Port Access Endoscopic Thyroidectomy via Axillary Approach for the Benign Thyroid Tumor: New Aspects from Vietnam. Int J Gen Med. 2021;14:1853–1864. doi: 10.2147/IJGM.S308807 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kandil E, Attia AS, Hadedeya D, Shihabi A, Elnahla A. Robotic Thyroidectomy: Past, Future, and Current Perspectives. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2020;53(6):1031–1039. doi: 10.1016/j.otc.2020.09.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Zhang W, Jiang DZ, Liu S, et al. Current status of endoscopic thyroid surgery in China. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011;21(2):67–71. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e318213961d . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Fengyun Cong, Yu Gan, Minzhong Xie, Nan Lin. Effect of CO_2 pneumoperitoneum on internal jugular venous pressure and central venous pressure in endoscopic thyroid surgery [J]. Journal of Laparoscopic Surgery, 2017,22 (03): 201–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yang SM, Park WS, You JY, et al. Comparison of postoperative outcomes between bilateral axillo-breast approach-robotic thyroidectomy and transoral robotic thyroidectomy. Gland Surg. 2020;9(6):1998–2004. doi: 10.21037/gs-20-468 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rossi L, Materazzi G, Bakkar S, Miccoli P. Recent Trends in Surgical Approach to Thyroid Cancer. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:699805. Published 2021 Jun 2. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.699805 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Xin Jin, Yan Zhao, Dajun Yu, Jun Qian. Application of lateral approach in reoperation of thyroid tumor [J]. Journal of Bengbu Medical College, 2017,42 (06): 720–721+724. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ren YX, Yang J, Sun WZ, et al. Application of lateral supraclavicular incision in unilateral thyroid papillary carcinoma surgery. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;88 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S42–S47. doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2021.03.010 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Cai Q, Huang X, Han P, Sun W, Liang F, Jiang X. Endoscopy-assisted thyroid surgery via a subclavian approach. Surg Today. 2013;43(5):479–484. doi: 10.1007/s00595-012-0327-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Piccoli M, Mullineris B, Gozzo D, et al. Evolution Strategies in Transaxillary Robotic Thyroidectomy: Considerations on the First 449 Cases Performed. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2019;29(4):433–440. doi: 10.1089/lap.2019.0021 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ikeda Y, Takami H, Sasaki Y, Kan S, Niimi M. Endoscopic neck surgery by the axillary approach. J Am Coll Surg. 2000;191(3):336–340. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(00)00342-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yoon JH, Park CH, Chung WY. Gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy via an axillary approach: experience of 30 cases. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2006;16(4):226–231. doi: 10.1097/00129689-200608000-00006 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lee DW, Ko SH, Song CM, Ji YB, Kim JK, Tae K. Comparison of postoperative cosmesis in transaxillary, postauricular facelift, and conventional transcervical thyroidectomy. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(8):3388–3397. doi: 10.1007/s00464-019-07113-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Yulian ED, Kurnia A, Kartini D, Melati PA. Endoscopic thyroidectomy via axillary-breast-shoulder approach: Early experience of 42 cases. Surg Oncol. 2020;34:318–323. doi: 10.1016/j.suronc.2020.05.007 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Qu Y, Han Y, Wang W, Zhang X, Ma G. Clinical analysis of total endoscopic thyroidectomy via breast areola approach in early differentiated thyroid cancer. J BUON. 2021;26(3):1022–1027. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hayward NJ, Grodski S, Yeung M, Johnson WR, Serpell J. Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in thyroid surgery: a review. ANZ J Surg. 2013;83(1–2):15–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2012.06247.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mannstadt M, Bilezikian JP, Thakker RV, et al. Hypoparathyroidism [published correction appears in Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017 Oct 05;3:17080]. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017;3:17055. doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2017.55 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cocuzza S, Di Luca M, Maniaci A, et al. Precision treatment of post pneumonectomy unilateral laryngeal paralysis due to cancer. Future Oncol. 2020;16(16s):45–53. doi: 10.2217/fon-2019-0053 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Benhidjeb T, Wilhelm T, Harlaar J, Kleinrensink GJ, Schneider TA, Stark M. Natural orifice surgery on thyroid gland: totally transoral video-assisted thyroidectomy (TOVAT): report of first experimental results of a new surgical method. Surg Endosc. 2009;23(5):1119–1120. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0347-0 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Huang JK, Ma L, Song WH, Lu BY, Huang YB, Dong HM. Quality of life and cosmetic result of single-port access endoscopic thyroidectomy via axillary approach in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2016;9:4053–4059. Published 2016 Jul 4. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S99980 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wilhelm T, Metzig A. Video. Endoscopic minimally invasive thyroidectomy: first clinical experience. Surg Endosc. 2010;24(7):1757–1758. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0820-9 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Antonino Maniaci

16 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-28247The feasibility and clinical significance of lateral approach thyroidectomyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonino Maniaci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please perform all the revisions required.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I read with interest the manuscript by An et al. on the feasibility and clinical significance of lateral approach thyroidectomy. I have some comments to report to improve the manuscript:

- Authors should report ethical committee approval with code and date of approval.

- Why authors did not compare the lateral approach with the standard one? Please clarify.

- "Of the 52 patients, 8 were male and 44 were female, with an age range of 31-50 years and a mean age of (41.75±9.27) years." This information should be provided in the results section.

- Where is Weifang People's Hospital located? Please specify.

- Please include the outcomes studied under the subparagraph "outcomes" in the methods section.

- In all the tables provided, rows and columns must be inverted, to increase readability.

- In table 3, 4 and 5 there are some characters in chinese. please remove them.

- Please report a paragraph with the limitations of the study.

Reviewer #2: Introduction:

- Provide more background on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer and demand for approaches that optimize cosmetic outcomes. Cite doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1341-2.

- Discuss limitations of conventional thyroidectomy incisions in meeting cosmetic expectations, especially in younger female patients. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0347-0.

- Introduce various alternative surgical approaches for thyroid cancer, like transoral, retroauricular etc. and their pros and cons.

- Provide more details on the lateral approaches and explain how their incremental dissection could allow sequential accumulation of anatomical experience but increased risk of vocal cord paralysis. cite doi:10.2217/fon-2019-0053

- Clearly state the rationale and objectives of comparing feasibility and outcomes of the three lateral approaches.

Materials and Methods:

- Expand on inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection. Provide the sample size for each surgical approach group.

- Give more details about surgical equipment used. Specify any specialized instruments.

- Provide more information about general anesthesia protocols and patient positioning for each approach.

- Explain the step-by-step surgical techniques for each lateral approach, highlighting key anatomical landmarks.

- List all parameters that were observed and recorded during surgery and follow-up.

Results:

- Present relevant demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients in a table, with statistical comparisons between groups.

- Provide exact p-values and indicators of variance for all numerical outcome comparisons discussed between the groups.

- Include tables to summarize operative parameters, complications, pain scores, and satisfaction rates, with statistical significance marked.

- Comment on any notable patterns and variations between the three groups for the different outcome measures.

Discussion:

- Compare your cosmetic and other outcome results with prior studies on lateral and other minimal access thyroidectomy techniques. cite doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0820-9.

- Discuss possible factors contributing to differences in operation time between the approaches.

- Interpret the low complication rates in context of meticulous dissection techniques used.

- Suggest future research directions, like randomized controlled trials, long-term cosmetic follow-up, application for bilateral thyroidectomy etc.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 22;19(3):e0300604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300604.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Dec 2023

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript amid your busy schedule. I sincerely appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Below, you will find my itemized responses, and in the resubmitted files, you can locate my revisions/corrections. We have submitted two versions of the manuscript, one with marked changes and the other without markings. Thanks again!

Responses to Editor

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Author response: Ok, thanks!

2.We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

Author response: Ok, thanks!

3.Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.

Author response: Ok, thanks!

4.We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

Author response: We change and modify the figure.

5.Additionally, I would like to propose an adjustment to the authorship order. Considering Yong-Xue Gu's substantial contributions during the early stages of the project and her significant efforts in revising the manuscript, we kindly request your approval to designate Yong-Xue Gu and Ran An as co-first authors. We believe that this change accurately reflects their respective contributions to the work.

Responses to Reviewer 1

Reviewer point #1: Authors should report ethical committee approval with code and date of approval.

Author response #1: We added ethics committee approval with code 2023YX134 and an approval date of November 29, 2023. (Line 86-87)

Reviewer point #2: Why authors did not compare the lateral approach with the standard one? Please clarify.

Author response #2: When compared with the standard approach, the lateral approach undoubtedly results in longer procedural time and superior aesthetic outcomes. Therefore, the inclusion of such a comparison might make the study too broad, making it challenging to emphasize key points. The focus of this research is to highlight three pathways that progressively lengthen, step by step, gradually accumulating anatomical experience, with a short learning curve for clinicians. We chose to concentrate on a specific aspect to provide a more in-depth analysis.

Reviewer point #3:  "Of the 52 patients, 8 were male and 44 were female, with an age range of 31-50 years and a mean age of (41.75±9.27) years." This information should be provided in the results section.

Author response #3: This information is provided in the results section. (Line 120-126、Line 183-184)

Reviewer point #4: Where is Weifang People's Hospital located? Please specify.

Author response #4: The location of Weifang People's Hospital is provided in the Correspondence section of the manuscript. (Line 11-13)

Reviewer point #5: Please include the outcomes studied under the subparagraph "outcomes" in the methods section.

Author response #5: The results section contains the full study results, and the methods section contains the observational Indicators related to the results.

Reviewer point #6: In all the tables provided, rows and columns must be inverted, to increase readability.

Author response #6: We have inversion is made for the rows and columns.

Reviewer point #7: In table 3, 4 and 5 there are some characters in chinese. please remove them.

Author response #7: We remove the Chinese characters.

Reviewer point #8: Please report a paragraph with the limitations of the study.

Author response #8: We add the content about the limitations of this study. (Line 388-395)

Responses to Reviewer 2

Introduction:

Reviewer point #1: Provide more background on the increasing incidence of thyroid cancer and demand for approaches that optimize cosmetic outcomes. Cite doi:10.1007/s00464-010-1341-2.

Author response #1: Please refer to lines 53-55 and Reference 2 for details.

Reviewer point #2: Discuss limitations of conventional thyroidectomy incisions in meeting cosmetic expectations, especially in younger female patients. doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0347-0.

Author response #2: Please refer to lines 358-362 and Reference 23 for details.

Reviewer point #3: Introduce various alternative surgical approaches for thyroid cancer, like transoral, retroauricular etc. and their pros and cons.

Author response #3: Please refer to lines 241-265 in the Discussion section.

Reviewer point #4: Provide more details on the lateral approaches and explain how their incremental dissection could allow sequential accumulation of anatomical experience but increased risk of vocal cord paralysis. cite doi:10.2217/fon-2019-0053

Author response #4: Please refer to lines 353-354 and Reference 22 for details.

Reviewer point #5: Clearly state the rationale and objectives of comparing feasibility and outcomes of the three lateral approaches.

Author response #5: Please refer to lines 60-75 in the manuscript.

Materials and Methods:

Reviewer point #1: Expand on inclusion and exclusion criteria for patient selection. Provide the sample size for each surgical approach group.

Author response #1: We have already selected appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria and provided the sample sizes for each surgical approach group, which are 31, 13, and 8, respectively. (Line 88-90、Line 92-101)

Reviewer point #2: Give more details about surgical equipment used. Specify any specialized instruments.

Author response #2: More details have been provided about the surgical equipment used. (Line 105-114)

Reviewer point #3: Provide more information about general anesthesia protocols and patient positioning for each approach.

Author response #3: Please refer to lines 116-121 in the manuscript.

Reviewer point #4: Explain the step-by-step surgical techniques for each lateral approach, highlighting key anatomical landmarks.

Author response #4: We have made modifications and additions, please refer to lines 122-149 for details.

Reviewer point #5: List all parameters that were observed and recorded during surgery and follow-up.

Author response #5: Please refer to the Results section for details.

Results:

Reviewer point #1: Present relevant demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients in a table, with statistical comparisons between groups.

Author response #1: Please refer to Section 2.1 for the comparison of patients' baseline characteristics.

Reviewer point #2: Provide exact p-values and indicators of variance for all numerical outcome comparisons discussed between the groups.

Author response #2: Please refer to the Results section.

Reviewer point #3: Include tables to summarize operative parameters, complications, pain scores, and satisfaction rates, with statistical significance marked.

Author response #3: Please refer to Section 2.2 -2.5.

Reviewer point #4: Comment on any notable patterns and variations between the three groups for the different outcome measures.

Author response #4: There were no significant differences among the three approach groups in terms of patient characteristics, number of central lymph node dissections, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, duration of drainage tube placement, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, satisfaction, and complications. However, the operation time was longest in the subclavicular approach group, followed by the axillary approach group, and shortest in the supraclavicular approach group. The total hospitalization cost was highest in the axillary approach group, followed by the subclavicular approach group, and lowest in the supraclavicular approach group. Refer to the Results section.

Discussion:

Reviewer point #1: Compare your cosmetic and other outcome results with prior studies on lateral and other minimal access thyroidectomy techniques. cite doi:10.1007/s00464-009-0820-9.

Author response #1: Please refer to lines 368-372 and Reference 25 for details.

Reviewer point #2: Discuss possible factors contributing to differences in operation time between the approaches.

Author response #2: Please refer to the Discussion section 3.2 for the analysis of operation time. (Line 317-340)

Reviewer point #3: Interpret the low complication rates in context of meticulous dissection techniques used.

Author response #3: Please refer to lines 248-252 in the Discussion section.

Reviewer point #4: Suggest future research directions, like randomized controlled trials, long-term cosmetic follow-up, application for bilateral thyroidectomy etc.

Author response #4: The study has certain limitations, and future research should focus on large-sample, multicenter studies to achieve broader clinical applicability. (Line 388-395)

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers Letter.docx

pone.0300604.s002.docx (18.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Antonino Maniaci

7 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-28247R1The feasibility and clinical significance of lateral approach thyroidectomyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 21 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonino Maniaci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please revise the paper according to the suggestions. Best regards.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors successfully addressed all the comments provided. I believe the manuscript is now ready for acceptance in its present form.

Reviewer #2: the paper is intersting but needs minor structural revisions:

Methods:

- Provide more details on patient selection criteria, such as inclusion/exclusion criteria related to tumor stage, disease status, other medical conditions, etc.

- Describe surgical techniques in more granular steps rather than just approach name. Identify key steps like nerve monitoring, hemostasis methods.

- Specify equipment/instruments used like endoscopic system, energy devices, monitoring systems, operation table configuration.

- Explain outcome measures and how they were assessed - define variables clearly like blood loss (intra-op vs total), complications (grading system), satisfaction scales.

- Describe statistical analysis in more detail - what tests were used for which outcomes based on data type/distribution. Specify significance level.

Results:

- Provide summary stats for sample characteristics like mean/median values for age, tumor size rather than just ranges.

- Use tables to present results clearly for easy comparison between groups.

- Consider graphical displays like boxplots for non-normally distributed data.

- Conduct subgroup/stratified analysis where appropriate to identify effect modifiers.

- Report both numerical values and percentages for categorical variables like complications.

- Interpret statistically significant vs non-significant findings in the discussion.

- Highlight key findings and discuss implications for clinical practice and further research.

Reviewer #3: I think authors have addressed the questions raised by the previous reviewers. I have no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Salvatore

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Mar 22;19(3):e0300604. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300604.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Jan 2024

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript amid your busy schedule. I sincerely appreciate all your comments and suggestions. Below, you will find my itemized responses, and in the resubmitted files, you can locate my revisions/corrections. We have submitted two versions of the manuscript, one with marked changes and the other without markings. Thanks again!

Responses to Reviewer 1

Reviewer point #1: The authors successfully addressed all the comments provided. I believe the manuscript is now ready for acceptance in its present form.

Author response #1: Appreciate your time and valuable input.

Responses to Reviewer 2

Methods:

Reviewer point #1: Provide more details on patient selection criteria, such as inclusion/exclusion criteria related to tumor stage, disease status, other medical conditions, etc.

Author response #1: The inclusion standards remain unchanged, while exclusion criteria have been added.(Line99-104)

Reviewer point #2: Describe surgical techniques in more granular steps rather than just approach name. Identify key steps like nerve monitoring, hemostasis methods.

Author response #2: Detailed steps for three lateral approach surgical procedures are described.(Line119-152)

Reviewer point #3: Specify equipment/instruments used like endoscopic system, energy devices, monitoring systems, operation table configuration.

Author response #3: The models and manufacturers of the instruments and equipment have been provided. (Line108-117)

Reviewer point #4: Explain outcome measures and how they were assessed - define variables clearly like blood loss (intra-op vs total), complications (grading system), satisfaction scales.

Author response #4: We have explicitly defined variables in the original text. For example, intraoperative blood loss is defined as the volume of bleeding during surgery, and postoperative drainage is defined as the amount of drainage following the operation. All observed complications were transient, and no severe complications occurred; therefore, no grading was performed. The transient nature is explicitly stated in the original text. Satisfaction comparison was assessed through postoperative follow-up scoring on a 5-point scale.(In the results section)

Reviewer point #5: Describe statistical analysis in more detail - what tests were used for which outcomes based on data type/distribution. Specify significance level.

Author response #5: Continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation (x±s). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for normally distributed data, and non-parametric tests were used for data with non-uniform variances. Categorical data were presented as frequency (n) and percentage (%), and the chi-square test was used for intergroup comparisons. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.(Line175-181)

Results:

Reviewer point #1: Provide summary stats for sample characteristics like mean/median values for age, tumor size rather than just ranges.

Author response #1: In Section 2.1.(Line186-196)

Reviewer point #2: Use tables to present results clearly for easy comparison between groups.

Author response #2: See Results section.

Reviewer point #3: Consider graphical displays like boxplots for non-normally distributed data.

Author response #3: The box plots have been added to the manuscript. (Line208-212、216-217)

Reviewer point #4: Conduct subgroup/stratified analysis where appropriate to identify effect modifiers.

Author response #4: Considering our research objectives, we believe that subgroup/stratified analysis would not be meaningful.

Reviewer point #5: Report both numerical values and percentages for categorical variables like complications.

Author response #5: Refer to Sections 2.3 and 2.5.

Reviewer point #6: Interpret statistically significant vs non-significant findings in the discussion.

Author response #6: Refer to the discussion section 3.1-3.4 for the analysis of the results section.

Reviewer point #7: Highlight key findings and discuss implications for clinical practice and further research.

Author response #7: Refer to lines 391-408.

Responses to Reviewer 3

Reviewer point #1: I think authors have addressed the questions raised by the previous reviewers. I have no further comments.

Author response #1: Appreciate your time and valuable input.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers Letter (1).docx

pone.0300604.s003.docx (14.3KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Antonino Maniaci

1 Mar 2024

The feasibility and clinical significance of lateral approach thyroidectomy

PONE-D-23-28247R2

Dear Authors,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antonino Maniaci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors, it's a pleasure to propose acceptation of the paper. Bests

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: all the revisions were performed, the paper is interestingly improved and now can be accepted.

Bests

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Salvatore

**********

Acceptance letter

Antonino Maniaci

7 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-28247R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Antonino Maniaci

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (ZIP)

    pone.0300604.s001.zip (1.7MB, zip)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers Letter.docx

    pone.0300604.s002.docx (18.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers Letter (1).docx

    pone.0300604.s003.docx (14.3KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES