ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2025
Outcomes after transoral robotic surgery for laryngeal cancer: a database study.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transoral robotic surgery for glottic squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and patient-level analysis of surgical, functional, and oncologic outcomes.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative evaluation of non-surgical and surgical treatment modalities for oral cancer.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Malnutrition predicts severe complications but not survival in laryngeal cancer surgery: a propensity-matched analysis.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for laryngeal cancer was first described in 2007. Since then, relatively small case series have supported the safety and feasibility in humans. We aimed to examine 90-day functional outcomes and complication rates after TORS for laryngeal cancer using a publicly available national database. The TriNetX database was queried for all laryngeal cancer patients ages 18-90 undergoing robotic surgery. Primary outcomes were five-year overall survival and 90-day rates of planned tracheostomy, postoperative gastrostomy, and overall complications. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to examine of the effect of tracheostomy and concurrent neck dissection on primary outcomes. 413 patients from 41 healthcare organizations were identified: 126 (30.6%) patients underwent neck dissection, 39 (9.4%) underwent tracheostomy, 94 (23.6%) required gastrostomy, and 43 (11.47%) incurred postoperative complications. Five-year overall survival for laryngeal cancer TORS patients was 72.41%. Before matching, neck dissection was associated with greater odds of overall complications (OR = 2.10, 95%CI = 1.08-4.07, p < 0.027) and gastrostomy (OR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.06-2.59, p = 0.027). Tracheostomy was associated with greater odds of gastrostomy (OR = 6.80, 95%CI = 3.35-13.81, p < 0.001). Matching identified 115 with and without neck dissection and 34 patients with and without tracheostomy. After matching, neck dissection was no longer significantly associated with higher overall complication and gastrostomy rates. Post-matching effects of tracheostomy on outcomes could not be studied due to reduced overall numbers. TORS for laryngeal cancer has acceptable complication rates. Neck dissection was not associated with greater odds of complications or gastrostomy. Larger studies are needed to determine the effect of tracheostomy on complication and gastrostomy rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41460548What 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.