Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39153111›Full record

ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2024

Robot-assisted versus conventional neck dissection: a propensity score matched case-control study on perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

Hyounmin Kim, Taegyeong Oh, In-Ho Cha, Hyung Jun Kim, Woong Nam, Dongwook Kim

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. [Current application and future development trends of robotic head and neck surgery].Lin chuang er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Journal of clinical otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2025
    Review
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.

Hyounmin KimDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.
Taegyeong OhDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.
In-Ho ChaDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.
Hyung Jun KimDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.
Woong NamDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.
Dongwook KimDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Yonsei University College of Dentistry, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. DWKIMOMFS@yuhs.ac.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The widespread acceptance of robotic surgery is extending to oral procedures. The demand for minimally invasive techniques is driving research into the cosmetic and oncologic benefits of robotic neck surgery. This study used propensity score matching to analyze the clinical course and postoperative outcomes of robot-assisted neck dissections for oncologic efficacy and surgical safety. Between May 2020 and April 2024, 200 OSCC patients underwent surgery and 42 were excluded. The cohort included 158 patients, 128 of whom underwent unilateral neck dissection and 30 of whom underwent bilateral neck dissection. Robotic-assisted neck dissection (RAND) was performed in 36 patients while conventional transcervical neck dissection (CTND) was performed in 122 patients. Data analysis included several factors, including lymph node retrieval and perioperative outcomes, with 1:1 propensity score matching to ensure fairness. Each of the 39 neck specimens with 36 patients was selected. The CTND group was 8 years older overall than the RAND group, but otherwise similar in terms of primary site and clinical stage. The RAND group had a 55-min longer operative time and 140 cc more hemovac drainage than the CTND group, but the hospital stay and intensive care unit duration were the same, and the number of lymph nodes retrieved was the same. Survival rates also showed no difference across all stages. This shows that RAND is in no way inferior to CTND in terms of perioperative or oncologic outcomes, and demonstrates the safety of robot-assisted surgery, even in patients who require flaps or in patients with advanced stages.

Indexed as

Neck DissectionOperative TimePropensity ScoreRobotic Surgical ProceduresAdultAgedCase-Control StudiesFemaleHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeNeck dissectionPropensity scoreRobot-assisted head and neck surgeryRobotic surgical proceduresSurvival analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.