Randomized clinical trial of ultrasonic scissors versus conventional haemostasis to compare complications and economics after total thyroidectomy (FOThyr)

随机临床试验比较超声剪刀与传统止血方法在甲状腺全切除术后的并发症和经济效益(FOThyr)

阅读:2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefits of single-use ultrasonic scissors in thyroid surgery are still debated. Although this device has been shown to reduce operating time compared with conventional haemostasis, its cost-effectiveness has never been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic scissors for total thyroidectomy. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, multicentre trial conducted at 13 hospital sites. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with hypocalcaemia (serum calcium level below 2 mmol/l) on day 2. Secondary endpoints included postoperative complications and costs, with calculation of incremental cost differences and cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: In total, 1329 patients who underwent total thyroidectomy were included in the analysis: 670 were randomized to treatment with ultrasonic scissors and 659 to conventional haemostasis. There was no difference between groups in the rate of complications, including hypocalcaemia on day 2 (19(.)7 per cent in ultrasonic scissors group versus 20(.)3 per cent in conventional haemostasis group; P = 0·743). Median operating times were significantly shorter with ultrasonic scissors (90 versus 100 min with conventional haemostasis; P < 0·001). Total mean(s.d.) direct costs at 6 months were €4311(1547) and €4011(1596) respectively (P < 0·001). CONCLUSION: Ultrasonic scissors were no more clinically effective than conventional haemostasis, but use of these devices was more costly. Registration number: NCT01551914 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。