Skip to main content
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England logoLink to Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
. 2016 Sep;98(7):521. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2016.0160

Minimally invasive open thyroid surgery combined with facelift approach for the surgical management of metastatic papillary thyroid carcinoma

K Tzanidakis 1,, P Drury 1, N Kalavrezos 1
PMCID: PMC5209989  PMID: 27138848

Background

The surgical management of metastatic papillary thyroid carcinoma involving total thyroidectomy and neck dissection can be achieved with two distinct techniques: the conventional approach requiring a longitudinal neck incision (collar incision) extending between the posterior borders of the two sternocleidomastoids and minimally invasive video assisted thyroid surgery (either robotic or endoscopically assisted), which requires appropriately equipped units.1 We report a new strategy for the surgical management of thyroid cancer with neck metastasis that involves a combination of the minimally invasive open thyroid surgery (MIOTS) technique and a facelift approach. To our knowledge, this technique has not been published by any other unit.

Technique

Through the facelift approach (Fig 1), levels II, III and V (ipsilateral) are accessed while through the MIOTS approach (Fig 2), level IV (left and right), level VI and the thyroid are accessed. Depending on the levels requiring clearance, a second facelift approach can be developed on the opposite side. The operative time is approximately 180 minutes and the patient is usually discharged after 72 hours. The 2014–2015 reference cost to the trust for total thyroidectomy and bilateral neck dissection was £8,006.2

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Left facelift approach (preauricular and postauricular)

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Minimally invasive open thyroid surgical approach

Discussion

The combined surgical approach described does not require expensive surgical equipment, has a good cosmetic result, provides the maximum surgical outcome required for an oncological procedure and benefits the trust financially. We believe that it is a good alternative to the rapidly developing robotic/endoscopically assisted thyroid surgery, which is much more expensive (£21,117 in 2014–2015),2 requires more time and training, and has a longer recovery time.3–5

References


Articles from Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England are provided here courtesy of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

RESOURCES