Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Retroauricular endoscopic and robotic versus conventional neck dissection for oral cancer.
J Robot Surg. 2018 Mar; 12(1):117-129.JR

Abstract

There has been a significant increase in concern towards improving aesthetic and functional outcomes without compromising the oncologic effectiveness in head and neck surgery. The aim of the current study is to assess the feasibility and oncological outcome of the retroauricular approach for endoscopic and robot-assisted selective neck dissection (SND) for oral cancer in comparison with the conventional SND. A retrospective single institute cohort study was designed. Patients undergoing an SND for oral cavity carcinoma were included and allocated into two groups: (1) retroauricular approach group for endoscopic-assisted or robot-assisted SND or (2) transcervical approach group for the conventional SND. Primary endpoint was the perioperative and postoperative treatment outcomes. Secondary endpoint was the early oncologic outcome. Sixty patients were included (17 retroauricular; 43 conventional). For the primary outcome, only a significant longer operative time in the retroauricular group was identified. No unintentional injury or conversion to the conventional surgery was recorded. There was no significant difference identified in the early oncologic outcome, including number of retrieved lymph nodes and disease-free survival. Postoperative aesthetic results were considered superior when subjectively compared to the conventional approaches. Endoscopic and robot-assisted SND via a retroauricular approach is feasible, safe, and oncologically efficient when compared with the conventional surgery in a short follow-up scenario. It can be used for selected cases with a clear cosmetic benefit. However, further research with longer follow-up and patient satisfaction analysis is mandatory.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Prof. Antonio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, 01509-900, Brazil. renan.lira@accamargo.org.br.Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Prof. Antonio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, 01509-900, Brazil.Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Prof. Antonio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, 01509-900, Brazil.Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Prof. Antonio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, 01509-900, Brazil.Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, Younsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, Younsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology, A.C. Camargo Cancer Center, Rua Prof. Antonio Prudente, 211, São Paulo, 01509-900, Brazil.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

28474215

Citation

Lira, Renan Bezerra, et al. "Retroauricular Endoscopic and Robotic Versus Conventional Neck Dissection for Oral Cancer." Journal of Robotic Surgery, vol. 12, no. 1, 2018, pp. 117-129.
Lira RB, Chulam TC, de Carvalho GB, et al. Retroauricular endoscopic and robotic versus conventional neck dissection for oral cancer. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):117-129.
Lira, R. B., Chulam, T. C., de Carvalho, G. B., Schreuder, W. H., Koh, Y. W., Choi, E. C., & Kowalski, L. P. (2018). Retroauricular endoscopic and robotic versus conventional neck dissection for oral cancer. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 12(1), 117-129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0706-0
Lira RB, et al. Retroauricular Endoscopic and Robotic Versus Conventional Neck Dissection for Oral Cancer. J Robot Surg. 2018;12(1):117-129. PubMed PMID: 28474215.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Retroauricular endoscopic and robotic versus conventional neck dissection for oral cancer. AU - Lira,Renan Bezerra, AU - Chulam,Thiago Celestino, AU - de Carvalho,Genival Barbosa, AU - Schreuder,Willem Hans, AU - Koh,Yoon Woo, AU - Choi,Eun Chang, AU - Kowalski,Luiz Paulo, Y1 - 2017/05/04/ PY - 2016/12/19/received PY - 2017/04/24/accepted PY - 2017/5/6/pubmed PY - 2018/9/11/medline PY - 2017/5/6/entrez KW - Neck dissection KW - Oral cancer KW - Oral carcinoma KW - Robotic surgery KW - Video-assisted surgery SP - 117 EP - 129 JF - Journal of robotic surgery JO - J Robot Surg VL - 12 IS - 1 N2 - There has been a significant increase in concern towards improving aesthetic and functional outcomes without compromising the oncologic effectiveness in head and neck surgery. The aim of the current study is to assess the feasibility and oncological outcome of the retroauricular approach for endoscopic and robot-assisted selective neck dissection (SND) for oral cancer in comparison with the conventional SND. A retrospective single institute cohort study was designed. Patients undergoing an SND for oral cavity carcinoma were included and allocated into two groups: (1) retroauricular approach group for endoscopic-assisted or robot-assisted SND or (2) transcervical approach group for the conventional SND. Primary endpoint was the perioperative and postoperative treatment outcomes. Secondary endpoint was the early oncologic outcome. Sixty patients were included (17 retroauricular; 43 conventional). For the primary outcome, only a significant longer operative time in the retroauricular group was identified. No unintentional injury or conversion to the conventional surgery was recorded. There was no significant difference identified in the early oncologic outcome, including number of retrieved lymph nodes and disease-free survival. Postoperative aesthetic results were considered superior when subjectively compared to the conventional approaches. Endoscopic and robot-assisted SND via a retroauricular approach is feasible, safe, and oncologically efficient when compared with the conventional surgery in a short follow-up scenario. It can be used for selected cases with a clear cosmetic benefit. However, further research with longer follow-up and patient satisfaction analysis is mandatory. SN - 1863-2491 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/28474215/Retroauricular_endoscopic_and_robotic_versus_conventional_neck_dissection_for_oral_cancer_ L2 - https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0706-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -