ReviewJournal of robotic surgery2025
Haemorrhage following transoral robotic surgery in head and neck cancer.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transoral robotic surgery using the da Vinci single-port system: current evidence and clinical indications - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Institutional evolution of a robotic otolaryngology program across consecutive da Vinci Si, Xi, and SP platform transitions.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- da Vinci robotic-assisted surgery: implications for modern anesthetic practice.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
- Reconfiguring robotic surgery in head and neck practice: transition from multi-port to single-port with early clinical outcomes.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.