The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was conducted from 2003 to 2014 and stringent criteria were required for inclusion. Thirteen studies concerning an overall population of 1458 compared HS versus CH, whilst 8 studies with 1667 patients compared HF versus CH.
There was a significant reduction of operative time (Mean Difference [MD] = −25.49 min.; 95% CI −32.43 to −18.55), intraoperative blood loss (MD = −30.49 mL; 95% CI −53.01 to −7.97), postoperative drainage volume (MD = −12.90 mL; 95% CI −22.83 to −2.98) and postoperative pain (MD = −0.87; 95% CI −1.27 to −0.46) in patients underwent TT with HS.
Regarding HF group, a significant reduction of operative time (MD = −25.99 min., 95% CI −34.56 to −17.41), length of hospital stay (MD = −0.57; 95% CI −0.97 to −0.17), transient hypocalcemia (OR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.81) and postoperative pain (MD = −1.33 days; 95% CI −2.49 to −0.17) resulted.
HS TT can be a safe, useful and fast alternative to conventional TT. The newer HF can reduce the rate of hypocalcemia. Future RCTs of larger patient cohorts with more detailed data of postoperative complications, cost-effectiveness and cosmetic results, randomization procedures, intention-to-treat analyses and blinding of outcome assessors are needed to draw more meaningful conclusions.