ArticleCureus2025
Surgical Innovations in Otolaryngology: A Critical Analysis of Emerging Techniques and Technologies.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction An evaluation of new methods of surgery in otolaryngology is done with emphasis on four advanced surgical techniques: transoral robotic surgery (TORS), image-guided sinus surgery (IGSS), endoscopic skull base surgery, and 3D-printed implant-assisted procedures. The study evaluated a sample of 300 patients from Pakistan, ensuring that the evaluation was done in the light of these technologies vis-à-vis traditional ones. Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of such surgical innovations in terms of quality of life (QoL), complication rates, follow-up compliance, and intra-operative parameters. In addition, this study aimed to identify predictors for postoperative complications, thereby profiling potential selection biases for using these advanced techniques in surgical interventions. Methodology A retrospective cohort analysis of 300 patients was conducted, including demographic variables, clinical events, tumor volumes, and comorbidities according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index and frailty scores. Assessment of postoperative outcome parameters included QoL, complication events, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. A random forest model was trained to predict postoperative complications and showed an accuracy of 86.7% with an AUC-ROC of 0.91. Results The TORS and 3D-printed implant groups performed much better, showing significantly higher QoL scores (84.3 and 82.5 on average), low complication rates (9.7% and 6.8%), and high follow-up compliance (87% and 84%). They also show less blood loss and less time in ICUs. However, far fewer comorbidities and smaller tumors were found in these patients, which points toward a selection bias. Conclusion Emerging surgical innovations in otolaryngology, such as TORS and 3D-printed implants, create remarkable benefits in clinical scenarios associated with QoL and complications. However, patient selection bias creates barriers to realizing equitable access to the technologies, creating space for argumentation about evidence-based practice in clinical decision-making.
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.