Objective: Alternative energy devices have become a popular alternative to conventional hemostasis in thyroid surgery. These devices have been shown to reduce operative time and thermal nerve injury. As hemostasis is paramount in thyroid surgery, we sought to examine the relative efficacy of 2 alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostasis in preventing postoperative hematoma following total thyroidectomy.
Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
Review methods: A systematic literature search was performed for all relevant English-language studies published between 1946 and July 2018. Two authors independently extracted data and analyzed articles for quality using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Scale. Our primary outcome of interest was hematoma requiring reoperation.
Results: A total of 348 studies were screened, with 23 meeting the inclusion criteria. We found no significant difference in postoperative hematoma rates using alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostasis (P = .370, .317). Network meta-analysis echoed the results of conventional meta-analysis, demonstrating no significant difference in hematoma rates.
Conclusions: We found no significant difference in postoperative hematoma rates following total thyroidectomy for any indication with the use of alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostatic techniques. This suggests that hematoma occurrence does not necessarily need to be considered when choosing between these hemostatic devices. This information may help guide surgeons' decisions regarding choice of hemostatic technique during thyroid surgery.
Keywords: LigaSure; conventional hemostasis; harmonic scalpel; hematoma; hemostasis; thyroid surgery; total thyroidectomy; ultrasonic scalpel.