Ann Surg Treat Res.  2017 Nov;93(5):231-239. 10.4174/astr.2017.93.5.231.

Assessing cosmetic results after conventional thyroidectomy using the EASY-EYE_C: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

• Lee KH
• Kim EY
• Park CH
• Park YL
• Yun JS
• Lee GY

• KMID: 2393987
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4174/astr.2017.93.5.231

Abstract

PURPOSE
The incidence of thyroid cancer is relatively high, especially in young women, and postoperative scarring after thyroidectomy is an important problem for both patients and clinicians. Currently, there is no available product that can be used for wound protection during thyroid surgery. We used the EASY-EYE_C, a new silicone-based wound protector.
METHODS
We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial to assess the efficacy of the EASY-EYE_C with surgical scars. We studied 66 patients who underwent conventional total thyroidectomy or hemithyroidectomy performed by a single surgeon from August 2015 to June 2016. At 6-week follow-up, a single blinded physician observed the wounds to make clinical assessments using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), and a modified Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale (SBSES).
RESULTS
There were no significant differences by sex, age, type of surgery, body mass index, length of wound, incision site (from sternal notch), or thyroid weight, but the duration of operation was significantly shorter in the experimental group (E group). The e-group also had better POSAS scores than the control group (C group), with means of 43.2 (standard deviation [SD], ±15.9) versus 68.3 (SD, ±21.5), respectively (P < 0.05). The modified SBSES and VSS scores were similar to those from the POSAS.
CONCLUSION
In this study, all scores for evaluating outcomes were higher in the E group than in the C group. In addition, the operation time was significantly shorter in the E group. Therefore, the EASY-EYE_C may be useful for improving the cosmetic outcomes of conventional thyroid surgery.

Keyword

Thyroidectomy; Surgical wound; Silicones; Thyroid neoplasms; Surgical instruments

MeSH Terms

Body Mass Index
Cicatrix
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Incidence
Silicones
Surgical Instruments
Thyroid Gland
Thyroid Neoplasms
Thyroidectomy*
Wounds and Injuries
Silicones

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Before (A) and after (B) applying ‘EASY-EYE_C’ (using 4 hooks).

• 

  Fig. 2 EASY-EYE_C: body (A) and hooks (B).

• 

  Fig. 3 Six-week postoperative wound of patients using ‘EASY-EYE_ C’ (A) and not using ‘EASY-EYE_C’ (B).

• 

  Fig. 4 The mean difference in the total scores of OSAS, PSAS and POSAS (A) in the each score of 14 subdomains (B). Subdomain scores between experimental group (E group) and control group (C group) were significant for all 14 subdomains. POSAS, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale; OSAS, Observer Scar Assessment Scale; PSAS, Patient Scar Assessment Scale.

Reference

1. Economopoulos KP, Petralias A, Linos E, Linos D. Psychometric evaluation of Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire following thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Thyroid. 2012; 22:145–150.

2. Bokor T, Kiffner E, Kotrikova B, Billmann F. Cosmesis and body image after minimally invasive or open thyroid surgery. World J Surg. 2012; 36:1279–1285.

3. Katz L, Abdel Khalek M, Crawford B, Kandil E. Robotic-assisted transaxillary parathyroidectomy of an atypical adenoma. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2012; 21:201–205.

4. Alvarado R, McMullen T, Sidhu SB, Delbridge LW, Sywak MS. Minimally invasive thyroid surgery for single nodules: an evidence-based review of the lateral miniincision technique. World J Surg. 2008; 32:1341–1348.

5. Terris DJ, Seybt MW. Classification system for minimally invasive thyroid surgery. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2008; 70:287–291.

6. Kang SW, Jeong JJ, Yun JS, Sung TY, Lee SC, Lee YS, et al. Gasless endoscopic thyroidectomy using trans-axillary approach; surgical outcome of 581 patients. Endocr J. 2009; 56:361–369.

7. O'Connell DA, Diamond C, Seikaly H, Harris JR. Objective and subjective scar aesthetics in minimal access vs conventional access parathyroidectomy and thyroidectomy surgical procedures: a paired cohort study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008; 134:85–93.

8. Toll EC, Loizou P, Davis CR, Porter GC, Pothier DD. Scars and satisfaction: do smaller scars improve patient-reported outcome? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012; 269:309–313.

9. Edwards JP, Ho AL, Tee MC, Dixon E, Ball CG. Wound protectors reduce surgical site infection: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg. 2012; 256:53–59.

10. Lira RB, de Carvalho GB, Vartanian JG, Kowalski LP. Protecting the skin during thyroidectomy. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2014; 41:68–71.

11. Lee YS, Kim BW, Chang HS, Park CS. Use of a silicone penrose drain to protect incised skin edges during thyroid surgery. Surg Innov. 2013; 20:NP1–NP2.

12. Consorti F, Mancuso R, Piccolo A, Pretore E, Antonaci A. Quality of scar after total thyroidectomy: a single blinded randomized trial comparing octyl-cyanoacrylate and subcuticular absorbable suture. ISRN Surg. 2013; 2013:270953.

13. Vercelli S, Ferriero G, Sartorio F, Stissi V, Franchignoni F. How to assess postsurgical scars: a review of outcome measures. Disabil Rehabil. 2009; 31:2055–2063.

14. Kim YS, Lee HJ, Cho SH, Lee JD, Kim HS. Early postoperative treatment of thyroidectomy scars using botulinum toxin: a split-scar, double-blind randomized controlled trial. Wound Repair Regen. 2014; 22:605–612.

15. Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004; 113:1960–1965.

16. Simcock JW, Armitage J, Dixon L, MacFarlane K, Robertson GM, Frizelle FA. Skin closure after laparotomy with staples or sutures: a study of the mature scar. ANZ J Surg. 2014; 84:656–659.

17. Huppelschoten AG, van Ginderen JC, van den Broek KC, Bouwma AE, Oosterbaan HP. Different ways of subcutaneous tissue and skin closure at cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial on the long-term cosmetic outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013; 92:916–924.

18. Maher SF, Dorko L, Saliga S. Linear scar reduction using silicone gel sheets in individuals with normal healing. J Wound Care. 2012; 21:602604–606. 608–609.

19. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990; 11:256–260.

20. Truong PT, Lee JC, Soer B, Gaul CA, Olivotto IA. Reliability and validity testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in evaluating linear scars after breast cancer surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007; 119:487–494.

21. van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CM, van Zuijlen PP. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 116:514–522.

22. Truong PT, Abnousi F, Yong CM, Hayashi A, Runkel JA, Phillips T, et al. Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and patients' perspectives. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005; 116:1291–1299.

23. Nedelec B, Shankowsky HA, Tredget EE. Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver Scar Scale and scar volume. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2000; 21:205–212.

24. Jablonka EM, Sherris DA, Gassner HG. Botulinum toxin to minimize facial scarring. Facial Plast Surg. 2012; 28:525–535.

25. Lombardi CP, Bracaglia R, Revelli L, Insalaco C, Pennestri F, Bellantone R, et al. Aesthetic result of thyroidectomy: evaluation of different kinds of skin suture. Ann Ital Chir. 2011; 82:449–455.