ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2023
Oropharyngeal free flap reconstruction: Transoral robotic surgery versus open approach.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- [Management and consideration of positive surgical margins in locally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with oral robotic surgery].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Transoral Robotic Surgery for the Salvage of Primarily Irradiated Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinomas Recurring at the Base of the Tongue: A Small Monoinstitutional Series.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) in Head and Neck Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Perspectives in Using Multiple Flaps Reconstructions for Advanced Head and Neck Tumors (Scoping Review).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Oropharyngeal free flap reconstruction: Transoral robotic surgery versus open approach.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has evolved since its 2009 US Food and Drug Administration approval for use in local stage T1-T2 oropharyngeal carcinoma. The ability to resect increasingly larger and more complex lesions has led to the need to introduce reconstructive techniques through this route, avoiding the classic transmandibular or pull-through approach. Few studies have compared the safety, efficacy, and advantages of TORS versus classic open approaches in oropharyngeal salvage surgery with reconstruction using microanastomosed flaps. Here we retrospectively compare our center's experience with the open approach and TORS and describe the technical variations used. Methods: Between 2013 and 2021, 30 stage III-IV oropharyngeal cancer patients underwent salvage surgery with reconstruction in our center. From 2013 to 2017, 15 patients underwent surgery with the classic open approach, and from 2018 to 2021, an additional 15 patients underwent TORS. We have compared surgical outcomes, post-surgical results, and survival in the two groups. Results: Patient characteristics were similar in the two groups. TORS was associated with shorter surgical time ( Conclusion: Oropharyngeal salvage surgery with TORS with free flap reconstruction reduced associated morbidity compared to the open approach in a patient cohort with poor prognosis. Level of Evidence: 4.
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.