MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1002/hed.70509

Медицинская библиотека · Head & neck · 2026

Shaving Versus Resection on Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in Thyroid Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Tran Eric, Kankam Jordan, Salehian Liana, May Harry, Stuart Daniel, Dundar Yusuf

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Management of recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) invasion by thyroid cancer remains controversial between shaving the tumor and resecting it. We compared oncological and functional outcomes of the two techniques.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, three reviewers searched seven databases for studies from 1995 to 2024 comparing shaving and resection of the RLN. Outcomes explored were overall survival, recurrence, preservation of vocal cord function, maximum phonation time, and other treatment-related morbidities if provided.

RESULTS

A total of 13 retrospective cohorts (532 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall survival and tracheotomy requirements did not differ between groups. Shaving was associated with lower recurrence (p = 0.007), better vocal fold mobility (p < 0.0001), and longer maximum phonation time (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This analysis showed that shaving was associated with better functional outcomes and lower recurrence than resection, without a survival difference. Because shaved patients had less advanced disease, these associations may reflect selection bias; prospective studies are needed.

Для цитирования: Tran Eric, Kankam Jordan, Salehian Liana, May Harry, Stuart Daniel, Dundar Yusuf. Shaving Versus Resection on Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve in Thyroid Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Head & neck. 2026. DOI: 10.1002/hed.70509.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.