Literature DB >> 22752997

Transoral robotic surgery: a multicenter study to assess feasibility, safety, and surgical margins.

Gregory S Weinstein1, Bert W O'Malley, J Scott Magnuson, William R Carroll, Kerry D Olsen, Lixia Daio, Eric J Moore, F Christopher Holsinger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Our objective was to determine the safety, feasibility, and the adequacy of surgical margins for transoral robotic surgery (TORS), by reviewing the early results from independent institutional review board-approved clinical trials in three separate institutions. STUDY
DESIGN: Pooled Data from Independent Prospective Clinical Trials.
METHODS: One hundred ninety-two patients were initially screened, but inadequate exposure did not permit TORS in 13 (6.7%). For two additional patients, TORS was begun but intraoperatively converted to an open procedure. Thus, the intent-to-treat population was 177 patients (average age, 59 years; 81% male), predominantly comprised of tumors arising in the oropharynx (139, 78%) and larynx (26, 15%). TORS was performed for 161 (91%) patients with malignant disease: 153 (95%) with squamous cell carcinoma (T1 [50, 32.7%], T2 [74, 48.4%], T3 [21, 13.7%], T4 [8, 5.2%]), six patients (3.72%) with salivary gland tumors, and two patients with carcinoma in situ. The average follow-up was 345 days.
RESULTS: There was no intraoperative mortality or death in the immediate postoperative period. Average estimated blood loss was 83 mL; no patient required transfusion. The rate of positive margins was 4.3%. Twenty-nine patients (16%) experienced 34 serious adverse events that required hospitalization or intervention (grade 3) or were considered life threatening (grade 4, 2.3%). Tracheostomy was performed in 12.4% of all patients (22/177), but only 2.3% had a tracheostomy at last follow-up. For all patients undergoing TORS without previous therapy, the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy dependency rate was 5.0%. The average hospital stay was 4.2 days.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on this multicenter study, TORS appears to be safe, feasible, and as such play an important role in the multidisciplinary management of head and neck cancer.
Copyright © 2012 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22752997     DOI: 10.1002/lary.23294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  96 in total

1.  Characterizing postoperative physiologic swallow function following transoral robotic surgery for early stage tonsil, base of tongue, and unknown primary human papillomavirus-associated squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Lauren Ottenstein; Hannah Cornett; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Meghana Nathan; Susan Thomas; Amanda I Gillespie; Nancy McColloch; Tiffany Barrett; Matthew B Studer; Meghan Brinkman; Azeem S Kaka; Brian J Boyce; Robert L Ferris; Ashley H Aiken; Mark El-Deiry; Jonathan J Beitler; Mihir R Patel
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.147

Review 2.  Surgical Options for Locally Advanced Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Authors:  Hannan A Qureshi; Marianne Abouyared; Brittany Barber; Jeffrey J Houlton
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2019-04-01

3.  Assessment of Surgical Learning Curves in Transoral Robotic Surgery for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Oropharynx.

Authors:  William G Albergotti; William E Gooding; Mark W Kubik; Mathew Geltzeiler; Seungwon Kim; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Robert L Ferris
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 6.223

4.  Understanding contraindications for transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for oropharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Gregory S Weinstein; Bert W O'Malley; Alessandra Rinaldo; Carl E Silver; Jochen A Werner; Alfio Ferlito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-10-20       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 5.  The role of transoral robotic surgery in the management of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a current review.

Authors:  E Ritter Sansoni; Neil D Gross
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 5.075

6.  Perioperative safety, feasibility, and oncologic utility of transoral robotic surgery with da Vinci Xi platform.

Authors:  Fanny Gabrysz-Forget; Taha Mur; Robert Dolan; Bharat Yarlagadda
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-03-01

7.  The 100 most influential manuscripts in robotic surgery: a bibliometric analysis.

Authors:  Tara M Connelly; Zoya Malik; Rishabh Sehgal; Gerrard Byrnes; J Calvin Coffey; Colin Peirce
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2019-04-04

8.  Postoperative hemorrhage and hospital revisit after transoral robotic surgery.

Authors:  Joseph Zenga; Jasmina Suko; Dorina Kallogjeri; Patrik Pipkorn; Brian Nussenbaum; Ryan S Jackson
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-04-20       Impact factor: 3.325

9.  Robotics in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery: Recommendations for training and credentialing: A report of the 2015 AHNS education committee, AAO-HNS robotic task force and AAO-HNS sleep disorders committee.

Authors:  Neil D Gross; F Christopher Holsinger; J Scott Magnuson; Umamaheswar Duvvuri; Eric M Genden; Tamer Ah Ghanem; Kathleen L Yaremchuk; David Goldenberg; Matthew C Miller; Eric J Moore; Luc Gt Morris; James Netterville; Gregory S Weinstein; Jeremy Richmon
Journal:  Head Neck       Date:  2016-03-07       Impact factor: 3.147

10.  Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal and tongue cancer in the United States.

Authors:  Thomas K Chung; Eben L Rosenthal; J Scott Magnuson; William R Carroll
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2014-08-05       Impact factor: 3.325

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.