ArticleBMC surgery2025
Electromagnetic navigation-guided TOES for parapharyngeal tumors: a comparative study on precision and safety.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSurgical treatment of parapharyngeal space tumors using traditional methods is associated with a high risk of significant complications, and conventional open surgery has limitations in terms of visualization. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of transoral endoscopic surgery combined with the Electromagnetic Navigation system (TOES + ENS) with traditional surgical methods (translateral approach and TOES without ENS) in the treatment of parapharyngeal space tumors.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective comparative analysis of 41 patients diagnosed with parapharyngeal space tumors who underwent surgical resection. Patients were divided into two groups: the TOES + ENS group (T group, n = 21) and the traditional surgery group (C group, n = 20). Primary outcome measures included surgical duration, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, time to first oral intake, length of hospital stay, and the incidence and severity of postoperative complications, the latter classified using the Clavien-Dindo system.
resultsBoth groups achieved high tumor resection rates, with a complete resection rate of 100% in the T group. In the C group, one case of incomplete partial resection led to recurrence during follow-up. Compared with the C group, the T group demonstrated statistically significant advantages in all perioperative indicators: shorter surgery time (79.10 ± 22.49 min vs. 119.75 ± 17.81 min, P < 0.001), reduced intraoperative blood loss (35.43 ± 18.16 mL vs. 92.50 ± 20.93 mL, P < 0.001), lower postoperative VAS scores (2.76 ± 0.70 vs. 6.40 ± 1.10, P < 0.001), shorter time to oral intake (2.19 ± 0.40 days vs. 3.85 ± 1.42 days, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital stay (3.86 ± 1.39 days vs. 7.40 ± 1.10 days, P < 0.001). The T group recorded only one transient Clavien-Dindo Grade II complication. In contrast, the C group experienced eight complications, including four severe events: one Grade IIId (permanent nerve damage), one Grade IIIb (vascular injury requiring reoperation), and two Grade IIIa events (abscess requiring drainage).
conclusionIn this study, although both surgical strategies effectively resected tumors, TOES + ENS was associated with significantly superior safety profiles, characterized by the absence of severe complications and markedly improved postoperative recovery outcomes. Despite the limitations inherent to the retrospective design and small sample size, these findings support TOES + ENS as a valuable and potentially superior surgical option compared to traditional methods for appropriately selected patients with tumors in the parapharyngeal space.
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.