We thank Dr. Muenscher and collegues for their review of our article on the underlying pros and cons of endoscopic and video-assisted surgical approaches for neck surgery. In our opinion, some points have not been stressed properly. Since its initiation in 1999, the minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) approach has been widely used for both benign and malignant thyroid lesions in both adult and pediatric patients [1–3]. Although listed as a disadvantage, the operative time for MIVAT resembles that for conventional thyroidectomy after an adequate learning curve period . Both the operative time and the complications rate for MIVAT equal those for open surgery [1–3]. A major criticism is the author’s reported absence of clinical studies investigating the completeness of video-assisted techniques in thyroid cancer. In fact, at least two clinical trials involving patients with low- and intermediate-risk papillary thyroid carcinomas (PTCs) have been reported by our university [4, 5]. We demonstrated that PTC patients who underwent MIVAT had a good outcome during a 5-year follow-up period. The outcome was similar to that for patients treated with conventional thyroidectomy and the same degree of exposure to post-surgical radioactive iodine treatment (I131) .
|Autori:||DONATINI G; MATERAZZI G; MICCOLI P|
|Titolo:||The endoscopic approach to the neck: a review of the literature and an overview of the various techniques|
|Anno del prodotto:||2011|
|Appare nelle tipologie:||1.1 Articolo in rivista|