|
| Author, year | Study design | No. (patients) | Approach | Comparative parameters | Perioperative results | Complication rate | Oncologic safety (surgical completeness such as harvested lymph node) | Other notable findings |
|
| Lee et al. (2011) [9] | Prospective, controlled, single surgeon | RT* (163) versus ET§ (96) | GT** | Perioperative outcomes,
surgical learning curve | Operation time
(ET > RT)
Learning curve
(ET > RT)
Advanced cancer (RT > ET) | No difference | Retrieved LN (RT > ET) | First comparative study between RT and ET. Showed superiority of RT in terms of operation time, lymph node retrieval, and learning curve |
|
|
Lang and Chow (2011) [11] | Retrospective, controlled, single surgeon | RT (7) ET (39) | GT | Perioperative outcomes | Operation time
(RT > ET) | No difference | No data | Described initial experience of RT in Hong Kong |
|
| Lee et al. (2011) [8] | Retrospective, controlled, single center | RT (580)
ET (570) | GT | Perioperative outcomes | Operation time
(ET > RT)
Advanced cancer (RT > ET) | Transient- hypoparathyroidism
(RT > ET) | Retrieved LN (RT > ET) | RT was found to be superior to ET in terms of operation time, and LN retrieval. |
|
| Kim et al. (2011) [10] | Retrospective, single center | RT (69)
ET (95)
OT (138) | BABA§§ | Perioperative outcomes | Operation time
(RT > ET > OT#) | No difference | Surgical completeness
(RT = OT > ET)
Retrieved LN
(RT = OT = ET)
| First comparative study of RT versus OT by analyzing postoperative outcomes |
|
