ArticleCancer2022
Transoral robotic surgery adoption and safety in treatment of oropharyngeal cancers.
Article in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comparative analysis of transoral laser microsurgery and transoral robotic surgery for the treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- [ORATOR2 trial: randomized comparison of primary surgery vs. primary radiotherapy for HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer in the context of de-escalated therapy].Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022Trial
- Impact of the force feedback feature on transoral robotic surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Association Between Postoperative NSAID Use and Bleeding Following Transoral Robotic Surgery.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Risk Factors for Catastrophic Health Events in Head and Neck Cancer: A Scoping Review to Inform Risk Prediction.Cancers · 2026Review
- Geographic and Institutional Patterns of Transoral Robotic Surgery in Head and Neck Cancer.Head & neck · 2026Article
- The application of transoral robotic surgery in the treatment of head and neck tumors: a bibliometric analysis based on the web of science core collection database.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- A National Analysis of Microscopic Positive Margins in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Undergoing Transoral Robotic Surgery.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Haemorrhage following transoral robotic surgery in head and neck cancer.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
- Volume Outcome Relationships of Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Undergoing Transoral Robotic Surgery.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- Psychological Distress and Quality of Life in Patients with Laryngeal Cancer: A Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Lower survival for surgical treatment of human papillomavirus-related oropharynx cancer at community cancer centers.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- [Transoral robotic surgery in pharyngolaryngeal surgery].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2024Review
- Increasing radiation therapy and lower survival for human papillomavirus-related oropharynx cancer associated with a shift to community cancer center care.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Role of TORS as De-Escalation Strategy in HPV-Related Oropharyngeal Cancer, What We Need to Know.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Staged neck dissection prior to transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer: does it reduce post-operative complication rates? A multi-centre study of 104 patients.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 · 2023Article
- Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Transoral Robotic Surgery for Head and Neck Cancer: Advances and Residual Knowledge Gaps.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Review
- Perioperative Mortality Risk in Patients Undergoing Transoral Robotic Surgery for T1-T2 Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A National Cancer Database Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTransoral robotic surgery (TORS) was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2009 for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancers (oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma [OPSCC]). This study investigated the adoption and safety of TORS.
methodsAll patients who underwent TORS for OPSCC in the National Cancer Data Base from 2010 to 2016 were selected. Trends in the positive margin rate (PMR), 30-day unplanned readmission, and early postoperative mortality were evaluated. Outcomes after TORS, nonrobotic surgery (NRS), and nonsurgical treatment were compared with matched-pair survival analyses.
resultsFrom 2010 to 2016, among 73,661 patients with OPSCC, 50,643 were treated nonsurgically, 18,024 were treated with NRS, and 4994 were treated with TORS. TORS utilization increased every year from 2010 (n = 363; 4.2%) to 2016 (n = 994; 8.3%). The TORS PMR for base of tongue malignancies decreased significantly over the study period (21.6% in 2010-2011 vs 15.8% in 2015-2016; P = .03). The TORS PMR at high-volume centers (≥10 cases per year; 11.2%) was almost half that of low-volume centers (<10 cases per year; 19.3%; P < .001). The rates of 30-day unplanned readmission (4.1%) and 30-day postoperative mortality (1.0%) after TORS were low and did not vary over time. High-volume TORS centers had significantly lower rates of 30-day postoperative mortality than low-volume centers (0.5% vs 1.5%; P = .006). In matched-pair analyses controlling for clinicopathologic cofactors, 30-, 60-, and 90-day posttreatment mortality did not vary among patients with OPSCC treated with TORS, NRS, or nonsurgical treatment.
conclusionsTORS has become widely adopted and remains safe across the country with a very low risk of severe complications comparable to the risk with NRS. Although safety is excellent nationally, high-volume TORS centers have superior outcomes with lower rates of positive margins and early postoperative mortality.
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.