Cargando…

Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND: TORS has become one of the latest surgical alternatives in the treatment of oropharynx squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) and has become increasingly accepted by surgeons as a treatment option. Surgical robots were designed for various purposes, such as allowing remote telesurgery, and eli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roselló, Àlvar, Albuquerque, Rui, Roselló-Llabrés, Xavier, Marí-Roig, Antonio, Estrugo-Devesa, Albert, López-López, José
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medicina Oral S.L. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32683380
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.23632
_version_ 1783579184035004416
author Roselló, Àlvar
Albuquerque, Rui
Roselló-Llabrés, Xavier
Marí-Roig, Antonio
Estrugo-Devesa, Albert
López-López, José
author_facet Roselló, Àlvar
Albuquerque, Rui
Roselló-Llabrés, Xavier
Marí-Roig, Antonio
Estrugo-Devesa, Albert
López-López, José
author_sort Roselló, Àlvar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: TORS has become one of the latest surgical alternatives in the treatment of oropharynx squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) and has become increasingly accepted by surgeons as a treatment option. Surgical robots were designed for various purposes, such as allowing remote telesurgery, and eliminating human factors like trembling. The study aimed to compare systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) compared with open surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TORS compared with open surgery. We compared TORS and open surgery based on 16 outcomes divided in to 3 groups: intra-operative complications, post-operative complications, and functional and oncologic outcomes. An electronic search of observational studies was carried out using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, and Scielo. Data analysis was carried out in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis (PRISMA) and the quality of the studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. No language restrictions were imposed. RESULTS: From the 4 studies identified (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale mean score 6.5), 371 patients were revised (186 patients were treated with TORS and 185 with conventional surgery). Overall, TORS, when compared with open surgery, appears to have better functional results (less hospital time, decannulation) and fewer intraoperative and post-operative complications. There is no significant difference when assessing the oncological outcomes (positive margins, survival rate) when comparing both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: TORS has an overall better functional outcome, and less intraoperative and postoperative complications with no difference in positive margins and survival rate when compared with conventional therapy. Key words:Transoral Robotic Surgery, TORS, open surgery, conventional surgery, head and neck cancer, oral cancer.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7473442
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Medicina Oral S.L.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74734422020-09-09 Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature Roselló, Àlvar Albuquerque, Rui Roselló-Llabrés, Xavier Marí-Roig, Antonio Estrugo-Devesa, Albert López-López, José Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Review BACKGROUND: TORS has become one of the latest surgical alternatives in the treatment of oropharynx squamous cell carcinomas (OPSCC) and has become increasingly accepted by surgeons as a treatment option. Surgical robots were designed for various purposes, such as allowing remote telesurgery, and eliminating human factors like trembling. The study aimed to compare systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Transoral Robotic Surgery (TORS) compared with open surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of TORS compared with open surgery. We compared TORS and open surgery based on 16 outcomes divided in to 3 groups: intra-operative complications, post-operative complications, and functional and oncologic outcomes. An electronic search of observational studies was carried out using the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, and Scielo. Data analysis was carried out in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis (PRISMA) and the quality of the studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. No language restrictions were imposed. RESULTS: From the 4 studies identified (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale mean score 6.5), 371 patients were revised (186 patients were treated with TORS and 185 with conventional surgery). Overall, TORS, when compared with open surgery, appears to have better functional results (less hospital time, decannulation) and fewer intraoperative and post-operative complications. There is no significant difference when assessing the oncological outcomes (positive margins, survival rate) when comparing both techniques. CONCLUSIONS: TORS has an overall better functional outcome, and less intraoperative and postoperative complications with no difference in positive margins and survival rate when compared with conventional therapy. Key words:Transoral Robotic Surgery, TORS, open surgery, conventional surgery, head and neck cancer, oral cancer. Medicina Oral S.L. 2020-09 2020-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7473442/ /pubmed/32683380 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.23632 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Medicina Oral S.L. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Roselló, Àlvar
Albuquerque, Rui
Roselló-Llabrés, Xavier
Marí-Roig, Antonio
Estrugo-Devesa, Albert
López-López, José
Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature
title Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature
title_full Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature
title_fullStr Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature
title_full_unstemmed Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature
title_short Transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. A systematic review of the literature
title_sort transoral robotic surgery vs open surgery in head and neck cancer. a systematic review of the literature
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473442/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32683380
http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/medoral.23632
work_keys_str_mv AT roselloalvar transoralroboticsurgeryvsopensurgeryinheadandneckcancerasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT albuquerquerui transoralroboticsurgeryvsopensurgeryinheadandneckcancerasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT rosellollabresxavier transoralroboticsurgeryvsopensurgeryinheadandneckcancerasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT mariroigantonio transoralroboticsurgeryvsopensurgeryinheadandneckcancerasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT estrugodevesaalbert transoralroboticsurgeryvsopensurgeryinheadandneckcancerasystematicreviewoftheliterature
AT lopezlopezjose transoralroboticsurgeryvsopensurgeryinheadandneckcancerasystematicreviewoftheliterature