ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2026
Robotic-assisted parotidectomy as a remote-access alternative to conventional open surgery: a single-center comparative experience.
Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRobot-assisted parotidectomy is a remote-access alternative to conventional open parotidectomy, but comparative data remain limited. This study evaluated perioperative safety, facial nerve preservation, complications, and pathological outcomes of da Vinci robot-assisted versus conventional open parotidectomy.
methodsPatients who underwent parotidectomy by a single experienced head and neck surgeon at a regional teaching hospital between January 2020 and January 2026 were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline characteristics, operative details, facial nerve outcomes, complications, pathological findings, and recurrence were compared between da Vinci robot-assisted and conventional open approaches.
resultsSeventy-four patients were included: 23 underwent robotic parotidectomy, including 17 da Vinci Xi and 6 da Vinci SP cases, and 51 underwent conventional open parotidectomy. The robotic group was younger, 44.52 ± 13.89 versus 51.78 ± 17.27 years, p = 0.015, and had more female patients, 60.9% versus 27.5%, p = 0.006. All robotic cases were completed without conversion. Operative time was longer in the robotic group, 183.6 ± 56.2 versus 141.7 ± 84.6 min, p = 0.034, whereas blood loss, drainage outcomes, and hospital stay were comparable. No immediate or transient facial palsy occurred in the robotic group, and no permanent facial paralysis occurred in either group. Negative margins were achieved in all robotic cases. Hypertrophic scar or keloid occurred in 2 robotic patients, 8.7%, and no open patients.
conclusionda Vinci robot-assisted parotidectomy was feasible and safe in selected patients with benign or non-neoplastic lesions. Its concealed-incision benefit should be balanced against longer operative time, scar-related trade-offs, and the need for larger platform-specific studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42625019What 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.