ReviewCureus2025
Surgical Approach of Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) With Transoral Robotic Surgery Versus Non-robotic Transoral Surgery and Laser: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is among the most common head and neck cancers, with increasing use of surgical treatment for stage T1/T2 cases. This study compares the oncological outcomes of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with non-robotic transoral surgery. A systematic review of the Ovid database was conducted using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction was performed independently by two authors, and publication quality was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine criteria. Outcomes related to oncological margins, swallowing, and voice function were analyzed descriptively. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, most of which were retrospective cohort studies. The comparative analysis demonstrated that TORS provides better overall oncological outcomes than non-TORS in patients with T1/T2 OPSCC. In addition, TORS was associated with a 30% higher rate of achieving clear surgical margins. While these findings suggest that TORS may be the superior modality for oncological and functional outcomes, the study is limited by the lack of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized treatment assignments. Further prospective randomized trials are necessary to confirm these results and establish clinical practice guidelines.
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.