SynthesisJournal of robotic surgery2023
Characteristics and outcomes of transoral robotic surgery with free-flap reconstruction for oropharyngeal cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of robotic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Preventing bleeding and surgical complications in transoral robotic surgery for the oropharynx: results of a global survey.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Robot-Assisted Surgical Technology in Plastic Surgery: Evolution, Clinical Applications, and Future Perspectives.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) in Head and Neck Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Functional Outcomes of Free Flap Reconstruction After TORS in Early-Stage HPV-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) approach for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer allows for reduced patient morbidity, amongst other advantages over the traditional lip-splitting mandibulotomy method. Free-flap reconstruction is commonly utilized in head and neck cancer surgeries; however, safety and outcomes of this technique in TORS procedures have not been well studied. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TORS with free-flap reconstruction (TORS-FFR) for oropharyngeal cancer. A systematic search of Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PubMed databases was completed. Following PRISMA guidelines, case series/reports, retrospective and prospective cohort studies were included. Primary outcomes measured were deaths and complication rates associated with TORS-FFR for oropharyngeal cancers. Secondary outcomes included functional swallowing and airway outcomes, operative time and length of hospital stay. Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria comprising a total of 132 patients. The mean patient age was 58.4 years. The most frequent complication was infection (8.9%) followed by flap wound dehiscence (4.2%). The average total operative time was 710 min (n = 48), while average length of hospital stay was 13.5 days (n = 48). Reconstructions were most commonly fashioned from radial forearm free flaps (RFFF), with anterolateral thigh flaps (ALT) representing the second most common free-flap subtype. TORS-FFR procedures for oropharyngeal cancer are safe, with low serious complication rates. This surgical approach may be associated with decreased length of hospital stay; however, further studies are required to better characterize post-operative outcomes.Level of evidence 1a.
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.