SynthesisMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2020
Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Thunderbeat®: a new step forward in transoral surgery-systematic review of literature and our experience.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Review
- Review
- Comparing Functional Outcomes Following TORS With Free Flap Reconstruction Using a Radial Forearm vs. Anterolateral Thigh Flap.Head & neck · 2026Article
- Feasibility, outcomes, and cost analysis of robotic head and neck surgery in the Public Health System.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Observational
- [Advances in the application of transoral robotic surgery].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Review
- [Anesthesia in transoral robot-assisted surgery].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Review
- Comprehensive review of post-treatment imaging in head and neck cancers: from expected to unexpected and beyond.The British journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharyngeal and Hypopharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Cureus · 2024Review
- Anesthesia for a Patient with Base of Tongue Mass undergoing Transoral Robotic Surgery: A Case Report.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Oral Cancers Using Transoral Robotic Surgery in an Endemic Region.Cancers · 2023Article
- Practice patterns in transoral robotic surgery: results of an American head and neck society survey.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
- Transoral robotic cordectomy for glottic carcinoma: a rapid review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2022Review
- Methodology in Conventional Head and Neck Reconstruction Following Robotic Cancer Surgery: A Bridgehead Robotic Head and Neck Reconstruction.Yonsei medical journal · 2022Article
- Dysphagia, hypothyroidism, and osteoradionecrosis after radiation therapy for head and neck cancer.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2022Article
- Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treatment in the Era of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.Viruses · 2021Review
- Indications and Clinical Outcomes of Transoral Robotic Surgery and Free Flap Reconstruction.Cancers · 2021Article
- New Medical Device and Therapeutic Approvals in Otolaryngology: State of the Art Review of 2022.OTO openArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTORS has become one of the latest surgical alternatives in the treatment of oropharynx squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) and has become increasingly accepted by surgeons as a treatment option. Surgical robots were designed for various purposes, such as allowing remote telesurgery, and eliminating human factors like trembling. The study aimed to compare systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) compared with open surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe performed a systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TORS compared with open surgery. We compared TORS and open surgery based on 16 outcomes divided in to 3 groups: intra-operative complications, post-operative complications, and functional and oncologic outcomes. An electronic search of observational studies was carried out using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, and Scielo. Data analysis was carried out in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis (PRISMA) and the quality of the studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. No language restrictions were imposed.
resultsFrom the 4 studies identified (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale mean score 6.5), 371 patients were revised (186 patients were treated with TORS and 185 with conventional surgery). Overall, TORS, when compared with open surgery, appears to have better functional results (less hospital time, decannulation) and fewer intraoperative and post-operative complications. There is no significant difference when assessing the oncological outcomes (positive margins, survival rate) when comparing both techniques.
conclusionsTORS has an overall better functional outcome, and less intraoperative and postoperative complications with no difference in positive margins and survival rate when compared with conventional therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.