ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Volume Outcome Relationships of Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Undergoing Transoral Robotic Surgery.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. 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.
- A National Analysis of Microscopic Positive Margins in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Undergoing Transoral Robotic Surgery.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
- Volume Outcome Relationships of Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients Undergoing Transoral Robotic Surgery.The Laryngoscope · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aim to demonstrate whether facility case volume is associated with (1) perioperative outcomes and (2) overall survival in patients with oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) undergoing transoral robotic surgery (TORS).
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort analysis of adults with OPC who underwent TORS between 2010 and 2017 using the National Cancer Database. Patients were stratified into high, mid, and low-volume facility groups based on facility TORS volume percentiles. Perioperative variables included 30- and 90-day mortality and positive margin rates. Baseline clinicopathologic variables and perioperative outcomes were compared using univariate testing. Multivariable analyses were carried out with logistic regression. Overall survival was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test as well as multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were created.
results4294 patients were included. As facility volume increased, there were stepwise decreases in rates of positive margins, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality (p < 0.001, respectively). Low-and mid-volume facilities were associated with greater rates of 30- and 90-day mortality compared to high-volume facilities, adjusting for comorbidity and age. Mid- and high-volume facilities were independently associated with improved overall survival, adjusting for age, comorbidity, histologic type, and clinical T stage.
conclusionTreatment at higher volume TORS facilities is associated with lower rates of perioperative mortality, lower positive margins, and improved long-term overall survival for patients with OPC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.