A decade of experience of thyroglossal cyst excision

11Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION We report our ten-year experience of thyroglossal cyst excision at Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, comparing outcomes, practice and technique. METHODS Retrospective case note analysis was conducted alongside surgical histopathology review for all thyroglossal cyst excisions performed between 2000 and 2010. This yielded 108 patients with histopathology results confirming a thyroglossal cyst. RESULTS The mean patient age was 21 years (range: 1 week - 76 years). Over half the patients (n=59, 55%) were less than 18 years of age. Fifty-five patients (51%) were male and fifty-three (49%) were female. Seventy cases (63%) were operated on by ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgeons. The rest were performed by paediatric surgeons (n=35, 32%), maxillofacial surgeons (n=2, 2%) and general surgeons (n=1, 1%). Paediatric surgeons undertook 35 (69%) of the 59 paediatric cases, with ENT surgeons operating on the rest (n=24, 41%). The primary surgeon was a consultant in 59 operations (55%) while in 49 cases (45%) it was a registrar. Thyroglossal cysts were ruptured in 21 operations (19%) during removal. The central portion of the hyoid bone was not excised in seven cases (6%). Twelve patients (11%) suffered postoperative complications, six of which were recurrences. CONCLUSIONS There was a combined recurrence rate of 6% across all specialties for the Sistrunk procedure. This is in keeping with commonly reported recurrence rates. However, we found that central compartment neck dissection, as a modification of the original Sistrunk procedure, provides a highly effective method for permanently excising a thyroglossal cyst and, in our experience, it eliminates recurrence.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ubayasiri, K. M., Brocklehurst, J., Judd, O., & Beasley, N. (2013). A decade of experience of thyroglossal cyst excision. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 95(4), 263–265. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588413X13511609958613

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free