Table 1. Comparative studies of robotic vs. endoscopic (or open) thyroidectomy.
| Author | No. of patients (open/endo vs. robot) | No. of LNs (central) | P value | sTg | P value | Study design | Approach | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open (endo) | Robot | Open (endo) | Robot | ||||||
| Lee et al. (19) [2010] | 26 vs. 26 | 4.3±2.9 | 4.4±2.1 | 0.842 | – | – | – | Open vs. robot | TAA |
| Kim et al. (14) [2011] | 138 vs. 69 | 4.8±2.8 | 4.7±2.7 | 0.802 | 0.8±2.0 | 0.8±1.4 | 0.978 | Open vs. robot | BABA |
| Lee et al. (40) [2011] | 108 vs. 108 | – | – | – | 1.4±3.9 | 1.4±3.8 | 0.564 | Open vs. robot | BABA |
| Tae et al. (37) [2012] | 204 vs. 29 | 7.8±5.5 | 4.4±2.4 | <0.001 | 4.9±8.6 | 12.7±15.0 | 0.031 | Open vs. robot | TAA |
| Yi et al. (38) [2013] | 423 vs. 98 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 0.577 | 95.6%† | 91.3%† | 0.133 | Open vs. robot | TAA |
| Lee et al. (18) [2013] | 51 vs. 43 | 6.3±4.2 | 4.9±2.9 | 0.058 | 4.2±1.2 | 4.91±1.4 | 0.674 | Open vs. robot | TAA |
| Kim et al. (31) [2014] | 364 vs. 100 | 10.4±6.1 | 87±5.1 | 0.006 | 1.2±2.6 | 1.4±3.0 | 0.652 | Open vs. robot | BABA |
| Lee et al. (15) [2011] | 96 vs. 163 | 2.4±1.9 | 4.5±1.5 | 0.004 | – | – | – | Endo vs. robot | TAA |
| Kim et al. (14) [2011] | 95 vs. 138 | 4.6±3.7 | 4.7±2.7 | 0.791 | 2.4±6.3 | 0.8±1.4 | 0.026 | Endo vs. robot | BABA |
Values in the table are means ± standard deviations. LN, lymph node; sTg, stimulated thyroglobulin; TAA, trans-axillary approach; BABA, bilateral axillo-breast approach; †, patient with sTg <1 ng/mL, N (%).