ArticleIndian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India2022
Efficacy and Safety of Novel Minimally Invasive Neck Dissection Techniques in Oral/Head and Neck Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Robotic infraclavicular approach for minimally invasive neck dissection: an evaluation of safety, oncologic efficacy, and learning curve dynamics in head and neck cancer surgery.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Functional outcomes and quality of life in patients who undergone conventional or endoscopic/robotic retroauricular neck dissection: a case-control study.Gland surgery · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite minimally invasive neck dissection (MIND) being popular technique, there is a paucity of literature emphasizing its safety and efficacy. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of MIND over CND techniques in treating oral/head and neck cancer. We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, from database inception to January, 2019 for the relevant studies comparing MIND and CND. Two independent reviewers performed quality check and data were extracted for primary outcomes to assess length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss and retrieved lymph nodes. Drainage volume and duration, length of incision, satisfaction of scar and safety were the secondary outcomes. We analyzed the outcomes using standard mean differences (SMDs) and the relative risk that were pooled using random effect meta-analysis. Out of 144 studies, 17 met the final inclusion criteria. MIND technique has shown better overall efficacy with outcomes compared to CND except with duration of surgery (SMD 1.82, 95% CI 0.47-3.17). Lesser hospital stay, better nodal yield and less intra-operative blood loss was observed with MIND over CND. Duration and volume of wound drainage was comparably less in MIND with smaller length of incision. Postoperative complications were less and tolerable with MIND approach with superior cosmetic outcomes. MIND via endoscopic or robotic approach is safe and efficacious with equitable oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes yield compared to CND, but it requires longer surgery duration.
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.