Reprints and permission:

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are dis-closed at the end of this article. Objectives. Two distinct remote access robotic thyroidect-omy techniques were implemented in a high-volume endo-crine surgery practice. Important technical and clinical differences were observed and are described. Study Design. Cross-sectional study with planned data collection. Setting. Thyroid center. Subjects and Methods. A panel of demographic and clinical parameters was captured in a series of patients undergoing 1 of 2 robotic thyroidectomy techniques (robotic axillary thyroidectomy [RAT] or robotic facelift thyroidectomy [RFT]). Particular attention was paid to time of surgery, ease of dissection, complications, use of drains, and length of stay. Results. Fifteen robotic hemithyroidectomies were accom-plished by either RAT (n = 5) or RFT (n = 10). The duration of surgery for RAT averaged 196 6 38.1 minutes, with no clear downward trend observed. The mean time of surgery for RFT was 156.9 6 16.3 minutes, with a steady trend toward shorter surgical times. All 5 RAT patients were man-aged with drains and as inpatients (length of stay = 1.0 days); 9 of 10 RFT patients were managed without drains and on an outpatient basis (the first patient had a drain and was observed for 1 night in the hospital; P \.001). Ease of surgery, familiarity with anatomic dissection planes, and sur-geon comfort level all favored RFT. Conclusions. In an early experience of a small series of patients, a more rapid learning curve reflected by shorter operative times was observed with robotic facelift thyroidectomy com-pared with robotic axillary thyroidectomy. Furthermore, the vast majority of patients could be managed as outpatients, which represents one of several apparent advantages