Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41460401›Full record

ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2025

Haemorrhage following transoral robotic surgery in head and neck cancer.

Charles Pinhorn, Robbie Stewart, Thomas Payne, Daniel Edwards, Yuvraj Singh-Dehal, Mughilan Muralitharan, Nashreen Oozeer, David Walker, Tom Vauterin, Aleix Rovira and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of robotic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

12 authors.

Charles PinhornKing's College London, London, United Kingdom. hlcpinho@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-2410-3672
Robbie StewartGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Thomas PayneGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel EdwardsGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Yuvraj Singh-DehalKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mughilan MuralitharanKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Nashreen OozeerSouth Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, United Kingdom.
David WalkerRoyal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Tom VauterinAZ Sint-Jan Brugge AV, Bruges, Belgium.
Aleix RoviraGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Jean-Pierre JeannonGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Asit AroraKing's College London, London, United Kingdom. asit.arora3@nhs.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the utilisation of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) continues to rise, there is a growing need to evaluate the risks of perioperative complications. Post-TORS haemorrhage represents the most severe complication associated with TORS, however currently there is no consensus for managing these patients. This review assessed the extent of post-TORS haemorrhage in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and evaluated current approaches for achieving haemostasis following post-TORS haemorrhage. A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase & Web of Science was conducted, to identify articles published from the databases' inception to January 2025. Severity, incidence & management strategies employed in these studies were examined, in addition to risk factors associated with post-TORS haemorrhage. 28 studies met our inclusion criteria. The pooled average bleeding incidence for HNC patients following TORS was 7.24%, with the median day for initial bleeding episode occurring post-operative day 6. Classification of post-TORS haemorrhage severity was documented for 28.5% of reported bleeds, highlighting the need to adopt a classification system. Management strategies for achieving haemostasis varied significantly between institutions, and granularity with respect to airway management was poorly reported. Currently, consensus regarding an appropriate stepwise approach to managing post-TORS haemorrhage remains contested, as highlighted by the varied nature of haemostatic management techniques employed across a range of institutions in the included literature. As data becomes more readily available a standardised approach to classification of haemorrhage severity will be possible and consensus on haemostatic techniques can be made, which will support the creation of best practice guidelines.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsNatural Orifice Endoscopic SurgeryPostoperative HemorrhageRobotic Surgical ProceduresHemostasis, SurgicalHumansIncidenceRisk FactorsBleedingHaemorrhageHaemostasisHead and neckTransoral robotic surgery (TORS)

Identifiers

PMID41460401
PMCPMC12748133

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.