Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40968196›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2025

Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) vs. endoscopy-assisted transoral approach (EATA) for parapharyngeal space tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohammed Abdulrahman Alhashim, Ahmed Abdulrahman Alrahim, Abdullah Omar Aljaafari, Lojain M Maawadh, Abdulaziz Fadel Alfadley, Marwah Foud Alabdulmhsin, Abdulsalam Alqutub

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2025. 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. Article
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

7 authors.

Mohammed Abdulrahman AlhashimENT Department, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed Abdulrahman AlrahimENT Department, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah Omar AljaafariENT Department, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Lojain M MaawadhCollege of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz Fadel AlfadleyENT Department, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. afalfadley@iau.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4530-146X
Marwah Foud AlabdulmhsinENT Department, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulsalam AlqutubDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Makkah Health Cluster, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLess than 1% of head and neck tumors are in the parapharyngeal space (PPS). With complex anatomy, conventional surgery is challenging. Endoscopy-assisted transoral approach (EATA) minimizes trauma and scarring; however, criticism regarding infeasibility with large tumors led to the introduction of transoral robotic surgery (TORS), which gives a 3D view of the field, reduces operative time, and is effective for larger tumors but faces technical and operational issues. This review compares the outcomes and complications of TORS and EATA.

methodsWe searched four databases for relevant articles up to January 2025. Two independent reviewers extracted data from the selected studies, including baseline information, operative time, blood loss, and hospitalization time.

resultsWe reviewed 32 studies, of which 27 provided sufficient data for analysis. These studies involved 348 patients treated for PPS tumors using either EATA or TORS. Operative times were similar for both methods, with EATA averaging 92.31 min and TORS averaging 93.93 min (p = 0.9385). However, compared to EATA, TORS was associated with reduced blood loss (16.98 ml, 95% CI: 9.38-24.59; p < 0.0001) and a shorter hospitalization duration (3.39 days, 95% CI: 2.51-4.27; p = 0.0278). Common complications associated with endoscopy included Horner's syndrome and wound dehiscence, whereas TORS rarely reported severe complications. No fatalities were documented for either method.

conclusionTORS is not inferior to EATA regarding operative time, with reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stays..

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryParapharyngeal SpacePharyngeal NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansOperative TimeEATAEndoscopic-assisted transoral approachMeta-analysisParapharyngeal space tumorsTORSTransoral robotic surgeryTransoral surgery

Identifiers

PMID40968196

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.