ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Preventing bleeding and surgical complications in transoral robotic surgery for the oropharynx: results of a global survey.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to characterize global practice patterns in transoral robotic surgery (TORS), with particular attention to differences across oropharyngeal subsites. Methods: We conducted a 40-item international web-based survey of TORS-experienced head and neck surgeons (April-June 2024). The questionnaire covered demographics, robotic platforms, bleeding prevention, airway management, postoperative care, and reconstruction. Descriptive statistics summarized responses. Base of tongue resections were compared with lateral oropharyngectomies using χ² or Fisher's exact tests, with Cramér's V for effect sizes; McNemar's test was used for paired binary data. Results: Sixty-nine surgeons from 22 countries completed the survey (response rate 37.9%), most working in academic centers (73.9%). Prophylactic neck vessel ligation was routinely performed by about 60% of surgeons for both base of tongue and lateral oropharyngectomy, with no significant difference in overall use between subsites. Among surgeons performing ligation, lingual artery ligation was significantly more frequent in base of tongue procedures than in lateral oropharyngectomy (p < 0.001; Cramér's V = 0.46). Routine tracheotomy was uncommon (4-9%) and mainly reserved for selected high-risk cases. Postoperative care varied substantially, with most patients hospitalized for ≥4 days and nasogastric tube use in 58-64% of cases. Local flap reconstruction was significantly more common after lateral oropharyngectomy than base of tongue resection, whereas free flap use did not differ between subsites. Conclusion: Our findings highlight considerable variability in perioperative and intraoperative management strategies for oropharyngeal TORS, reflecting the lack of standardized protocols. Differences in bleeding prevention and reconstructive techniques may be related to the anatomy of specific oropharyngeal subsites, underscoring the need for consensus-building efforts to harmonize TORS patient management.
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.