ReviewGland surgery2025
Theoretical perspectives on submandibular gland preservation in head and neck cancer surgery: a pre-research review.
Review in Gland 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the neck dissection procedures for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), the submandibular gland (SMG) is frequently and routinely removed. However, is the sacrifice of the SMG truly indispensable? We have analyzed this issue from multiple viewpoints. Anatomically, there are no lymph nodes (LNs) within the gland, thus eliminating the risk of cancer metastasizing to the SMG via LNs. From a pathological perspective, apart from cases in which the primary tumor tissue directly invades or adjacent LNs have extracapsular invasion, the probability of the SMG being affected by cancer is extremely low. In terms of patient survival rate, preserving the SMG during surgery does not exert a substantial impact on this critical metric. Preserving the SMG can assist in maintaining its secretory function. Nevertheless, the precise preservation of the SMG presents challenges. In addition to requiring greater data assistance, this idea may lengthen the procedure and raise the bar for surgeon skill. Although difficulties persisting, the significance of this perspective is far-reaching. The preservation of the SMG represents further exploration by clinicians in the realm of functional neck dissection. On the premise of ensuring safety, we endeavor to preserve more functional structures and reduce the resection scope, focusing not only on enabling patients with HNSCC to survive but also on guaranteeing their quality of life in the long term after treatment. Finally, we have proposed development directions and future prospects for this field, hoping to inspire fellow scholars. This study aims to analyze the necessity of performing SMG resection in head and neck cancer surgery, evaluate the evidence for SMG preservation (encompassing anatomical, pathological, survival, and functional aspects), discuss relevant controversies, and propose future research directions to provide guidance for clinical practice.
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.