Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41353736›Full record

SynthesisOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2026

A Meta-analysis of Functional Outcomes and Recovery Metrics Comparing Transoral Robotic Surgery and (Chemo)Radiotherapy.

Simpson Shiu Chung Tam, Nihal Sogandji, Muzammil Arif Din Abdul Jabbar, Shazia Huma Absar, Mikesh Kalpesh Patel, Jeffrey Tooze, Eleanor Barker, Manaf Khatib, George Mochloulis, Anant Patel and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudyReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

11 authors.

Simpson Shiu Chung TamSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1477-6729
Nihal SogandjiSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6982-8672
Muzammil Arif Din Abdul JabbarSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4882-8486
Shazia Huma AbsarSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-8803-0496
Mikesh Kalpesh PatelSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6877-8571
Jeffrey ToozeSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0694-9095
Eleanor BarkerMedical Library, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5472-2496
Manaf KhatibDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Lister Hospital, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
George MochloulisDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Lister Hospital, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Anant PatelDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Lister Hospital, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Amit GuptaMount Vernon Cancer Centre, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, Northwood, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess patient outcomes with regard to swallowing, feeding tube dependence, tracheostomy use, pain levels, and recovery metrics between transoral robotic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Library. REVIEW

methodsA meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines through a literature search of data sources (CRD42023464144).

resultsSixteen studies comprising 2185 patients were included. There were no significant differences in sex and age distribution between the transoral robotic surgery and (chemo)radiotherapy groups. Most patient demographics and disease status at baseline were comparable between the two groups. Meta-analysis of the studies found reduced gastrostomy tube usage in the transoral robotic surgery group at 6 and 12 months albeit poorer swallowing outcomes at 12 months according to the MD Anderson Dysphagia Index. Pain levels were generally lower in the transoral robotic surgery group in the long term.

conclusionThis review presents the most extensive examination to date of swallowing performance and recovery metrics in controlled trials of transoral robotic surgery versus (chemo)radiotherapy. Our findings show that transoral robotic surgery shows promise in managing difficult anatomical areas and low-grade tumors. However, methodological inconsistencies were noted between included studies, particularly in eligibility criteria and human papillomavirus p16 status. Consensus statements and/or guidelines on stratification and reporting of patients may aid in reducing this heterogeneity, while further randomized controlled trials may improve our understanding and guide the development of clinical guidelines on treatment choice.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyDeglutition DisordersHead and Neck NeoplasmsRobotic Surgical ProceduresHumansRecovery of FunctionTracheostomyTreatment Outcomehead and neck cancerhead and neck surgeryoncologyoropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomarobotic surgeryswallowing outcomes otorhinolaryngologytransoral robotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID41353736
PMCPMC12794744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.