Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:52:49.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A paired comparison analysis of third-party rater thyroidectomy scar preference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2016

C Rajakumar ,
P C Doyle ,
M G Brandt ,
C C Moore ,
A Nichols ,
J H Franklin ,
J Yoo  and
K Fung
C Rajakumar
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
P C Doyle
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada Rehabilitation Sciences, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
M G Brandt
Affiliation:
Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
C C Moore
Affiliation:
Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
A Nichols
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
J H Franklin
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Queen's University School of Medicine, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
J Yoo
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
K Fung*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Kevin Fung, Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, Room B3-427, Victoria Hospital, 800 Commissioners Road East, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5W9 Fax: +1 519 685 8567 E-mail: kevin.fung@lhsc.on.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the length and position of a thyroidectomy scar that is cosmetically most appealing to naïve raters.

Methods:

Images of thyroidectomy scars were reproduced on male and female necks using digital imaging software. Surgical variables studied were scar position and length. Fifteen raters were presented with 56 scar pairings and asked to identify which was preferred cosmetically. Twenty duplicate pairings were included to assess rater reliability. Analysis of variance was used to determine preference.

Results:

Raters preferred low, short scars, followed by high, short scars, with long scars in either position being less desirable (p < 0.05). Twelve of 15 raters had acceptable intra-rater and inter-rater reliability.

Conclusion:

Naïve raters preferred low, short scars over the alternatives. High, short scars were the next most favourably rated. If other factors influencing incision choice are considered equal, surgeons should consider these preferences in scar position and length when planning their thyroidectomy approach.

Keywords

ThyroidectomyThyroid GlandCicatrixMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresOtolaryngologyEndocrine Surgical ProceduresAesthetics
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 1 , January 2017 , pp. 13 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented as a poster at the Triological Society Annual Meeting, 20–21 April 2012, San Diego, California, USA.

References

1 Miccoli, P, Berti, P, Raffaelli, M, Materazzi, G, Baldacci, S, Rossi, G. Comparison between minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and conventional thyroidectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surgery 2001;130:1039–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Bellantone, R, Lombardi, CP, Bossola, M, Boscherini, M, De Crea, C, Alesina, PF et al. Video-assisted vs conventional thyroid lobectomy: a randomized trial. Arch Surg 2002;137:301–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Ikeda, Y, Takami, H, Sasaki, Y, Takayama, J, Niimi, M, Kan, S. Clinical benefits in endoscopic thyroidectomy by the axillary approach. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:189–95CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 Perigli, G, Cortesini, C, Qirici, E, Boni, D, Cianchi, F. Clinical benefits of minimally invasive techniques in thyroid surgery. World J Surg 2008;32:45–50 Google Scholar
5 Sgourakis, G, Sotiropoulos, GC, Neuhauser, M, Musholt, TJ, Karaliotas, C, Lang, H. Comparison between minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy and conventional thyroidectomy: is there any evidence-based information? Thyroid 2008;18:721–7Google Scholar
6 Chen, XD, Peng, B, Gong, RX, Wang, L, Liao, B, Li, CL. Endoscopic thyroidectomy: an evidence-based research on feasibility, safety and clinical effectiveness. Chin Med J (Engl) 2008;121:2088–94Google Scholar
7 Radford, PD, Ferguson, MS, Magill, JC, Karthikesalingham, AP, Alusi, G. Meta-analysis of minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy. Laryngoscope 2011;121:1675–81Google Scholar
8 Liu, J, Song, T, Xu, M. Minimally invasive video-assisted versus conventional open thyroidectomy: a systematic review of available data. Surg Today 2012;42:848–56Google Scholar
9 Pisanu, A, Podda, M, Reccia, I, Porceddu, G, Uccheddu, A. Systematic review with meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials comparing minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy (MIVAT) and conventional thyroidectomy (CT). Langenbecks Arch Surg 2013;398:1057–68Google Scholar
10 Park, CS, Chung, WY, Chang, HS. Minimally invasive open thyroidectomy. Surg Today 2001;31:665–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11 Rafferty, M, Miller, I, Timon, C. Minimal incision for open thyroidectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;135:295–8Google Scholar
12 Henry, JF. Minimally invasive thyroid and parathyroid surgery is not a question of length of the incision. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2008;393:621–6Google Scholar
13 Kandil, E, Hammad, AY, Walvekar, RR, Hu, T, Masoodi, H, Mohamed, SE et al. Robotic thyroidectomy versus nonrobotic approaches: a meta-analysis examining surgical outcomes. Surg Innov 2016;23:317–25Google Scholar
14 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 Google Scholar
15 Bartko, JG. The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychol Rep 1966;19:3–11 Google Scholar
16 Gwet, KL. Intrarater reliability. In: D'Agostino, RB, Sullivan, L, Massaro, J, eds. Wiley Encyclopedia of Clinical Trials. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2008;473–85Google Scholar
17 Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Shrout, PE, Fleiss, JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19 Jancewicz, S, Sidhu, S, Jalaludin, B, Campbell, P. Optimal position for a cervical collar incision: a prospective study. ANZ J Surg 2002;72:15–17 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Casserly, P, Kirby, R, Timon, C. Outcome measures and scar aesthetics in minimally invasive video-assisted parathyroidectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010;136:260–4Google Scholar
21 Brandt, MG, Moore, CC, Micomonaco, D, Fung, K, Franklin, JH, Yoo, J et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of scar assessment measures. Laryngoscope 2009;119:841–5Google Scholar
22 Toll, EC, Loizou, P, Davis, CR, Porter, GC, Pothier, DD. Scars and satisfaction: do smaller scars improve patient-reported outcome? Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2012;269:309–13Google Scholar
23 Linos, D, Economopoulos, KP, Kiriakopoulos, A, Linos, E, Petralias, A. Scar perceptions after thyroid and parathyroid surgery: comparison of minimal and conventional approaches. Surgery 2013;153:400–7Google Scholar
24 Kim, SM, Chun, KW, Chang, HJ, Kim, BW, Lee, YS, Chang, HS et al. Reducing neck incision length during thyroid surgery does not improve satisfaction in patients. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015;272:2433–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Economopoulos, KP, Petralias, A, Linos, E, Linos, D. Psychometric evaluation of patient scar assessment questionnaire following thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Thyroid 2012;22:145–50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Sahm, M, Schwarz, B, Schmidt, S, Pross, M, Lippert, H. Long-term cosmetic results after minimally invasive video-assisted thyroidectomy. Surg Endosc 2011;25:3202–8Google Scholar
27 Ridgway, DM, Mahmood, F, Moore, L, Bramley, D, Moore, PJ. A blinded, randomised, controlled trial of stapled versus tissue glue closure of neck surgery incisions. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2007;89:242–6Google Scholar
28 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 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29 Brandt, MG, Franklin, JH, Osborn, HA, Fung, K, Yoo, J, Doyle, PC. The Western Surgical Concern Inventory-Thyroid: development and initial validation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:227–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed