Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34900694›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2021

Endoscopic and Robotic Parotidectomy for the Treatment of Parotid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Shanwen Chen, Mei Zhao, Dong Wang, Yi Zhao, Jianxin Qiu, Yehai Liu

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Robotic-assisted parotidectomy as a remote-access alternative to conventional open surgery: a single-center comparative 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Minimally invasive vs conventional parotidectomy for benign tumors: a comparative study.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 · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Techniques of Endoscope-Assisted Parotidectomy: A Narrative Review.Journal of maxillofacial and oral surgery · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shanwen ChenDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Mei ZhaoOncology Department of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Dong WangDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Yi ZhaoDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Jianxin QiuDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.
Yehai LiuDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe goal of this review was to introduce endoscopic/robotic parotidectomy (EP/RP) and compare EP/RP against conventional parotidectomy (CP) regarding the intraoperative and postoperative parameters in the treatment of parotid tumors.

methodsA systematic literature search of medical databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) was performed from inception to November 2020 to generate relevant studies.

resultsA total of 13 eligible studies (572 patients) were included for systematic review, and 7 out of 13 comparable studies for the quantitative synthesis of outcomes. Patients who underwent EP were characterized by less intraoperative bleeding volume, shorter incision length, and higher satisfaction postoperatively (WMD, 95% CI, -42.80; - 58.23 to -27.37; p < 0.01; WMD, 95% CI, -5.64; -7.88 to -3.39; p < 0.01; SMD, 95% CI, 1.88; 1.46 to 2.31; p < 0.01, respectively). However, operative time and risk of facial palsy exhibited no significant differences (WMD, 95% CI, -11.17; -26.71 to 4.34; p = 0.16; OR, 95% CI,0.71; 0.39 to 1.32; p = 0.28, respectively).

conclusionsOur findings suggest that the current evidence does not adequately support EP is equally safe and effective as CP. In certain selected cases, endoscopic technology has its unique advantages. For patients with strong cosmetic needs, endoscopic or robotic techniques may be an alternative through adequate preoperative evaluations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, identifier CRD42020210299.

Indexed as

complicationendoscopic surgeryoncologyparotid glandrobotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID34900694
PMCPMC8660082

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.