Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 653

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk factors of paralysis and functional outcome after recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring in thyroid surgery

Open access
Dralle, Henning, Sekulla, Carsten, Haerting, Johannes, Timmermann, Wolfgang, Neumann, Hans Jürgen, Kruse, Eberhard, Grond, Stefan, Mühlig, Hans Peter, Richter, Christian, Voß, Johannes, Thomusch, Oliver, Lippert, Hans, Gastinger, Ingo, Brauckhoff, Michael, Gimm, Oliver·2004·Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND Recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring (RLNM) has been suspected to reduce postoperative RLN paralysis (RLNP). However, functional outcome of RLNM in comparison with no nerve identification and visual nerve identification only has not been analyzed. METHODS Analysis of 16,448 consecutive multi-institutional operations resulted in 29,998 nerves at risk. Three groups of different RLN treatment were compared: group 1, no RLN identification; group 2, visual RLN identification; and group 3, visual RLN identification and electromyographic monitoring. RLNM was performed with a bipolar needle electrode that was placed through the cricothyroid ligament into the vocal muscle. RESULTS Risk factors for permanent RLNP were recurrent benign and malignant goiter (odds ratios, [ORs]), 4.7, and 6.7, respectively), primary surgery in thyroid malignancy (OR, 2.0), lobectomy (OR, 1.8), no nerve identification (OR, 1.4), low or medium volume hospital (OR, 1.3), and low volume surgeons (OR, 1.2). CONCLUSIONS Based on these data, visual nerve identification was identified to be the gold standard of RLN treatment in thyroid surgery. RLNM is a promising tool for nerve identification and protection in extended thyroid resection procedures. However, because of the overall low frequency of RLNP, no statistical difference compared with visual nerve identification only was reached in the setting of this study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.surg.2004.07.018

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 653

Metadata

Authors
Dralle, H., Sekulla, C., Haerting, J., Timmermann, W., Neumann, H. J., Kruse, E., Grond, S., Mühlig, H. P., Richter, C., Voß, J., Thomusch, O., Lippert, H., Gastinger, I., Brauckhoff, M., & Gimm, O.
Venue
Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-12
Volume
136
Issue
6
Pages
1310-1322
ISSN
0039-6060 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074430077
Cited by
653
References
1
FWCI
12.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk factors of paralysis and functional outcome after recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring in thyroid surgery. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.surg.2004.07.018
The paper
Dralle, H., Sekulla, C., Haerting, J., Timmermann, W., Neumann, H. J., Kruse, E., Grond, S., Mühlig, H. P., Richter, C., Voß, J., Thomusch, O., Lippert, H., Gastinger, I., Brauckhoff, M., & Gimm, O. (2004). Risk factors of paralysis and functional outcome after recurrent laryngeal nerve monitoring in thyroid surgery. Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2004.07.018

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.