ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2021
The implementation of TORS for head and neck surgery in Thailand.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is a novel surgical treatment of head and neck cancers, mainly for limited tumor in oropharynx and supraglottis. Despite the major advantage of favorable postoperative functional outcomes, many obstacles exist during the implementation of TORS, especially in a country where financial resources are modest. We demonstrated our experience of initiating this sophisticated technology at the largest tertiary hospital in Thailand. A retrospective review study was conducted in patients with benign or malignant lesions during 2014-2020 at Siriraj Hospital. Different periods of operation time between initial and subsequent cases were compared to evaluate learning-curve improvement. A total of 36 patients underwent TORS, with median follow-up time of 18 months. The average time of room set-up, anesthesia, and positioning was 37 ± 14, 13 ± 7, and 15 ± 7 min, respectively. Whilst, the average robotic procedure time and total time in room were 44 ± 19 and 118 ± 31 min, consecutively. There was no significant difference in any time interval, except the set-up time between initial and subsequent cases. The worthwhile utilization of TORS could be administered cost-effectively despite the complicated and daunting implementation of TORS. Whilst, meticulous planning and sufficient training prior to the initiation of TORS can favorably shorten the learning curve of operative staffs in the TORS team.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33532951What 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.