Literature DB >> 35933632

Practice patterns in transoral robotic surgery: results of an American head and neck society survey.

Andrew J Holcomb1, Rachael Kammer2, Allison Holman2, Tessa Goldsmith2, Vasu Divi3, Heather M Starmer3, Joseph Zenga4, Ryan Li5, Urjeet A Patel6, Jeremy D Richmon2.   

Abstract

To understand perioperative practices for transoral robotic surgery (TORS) among academic medical centers. An electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed to fellows and program directors participating in 49 American Head and Neck Society fellowships. Operative decisions, medical and swallowing management, and disposition planning were assessed. Thirty-eight responses were collected (77.6%). Twenty-three centers (60.5%) performed > 25 cases annually with the remainder performing fewer. The da Vinci Si was the most commonly used platform (n = 28, 73.7%). A majority of institutions advocated tailored resection to adequate margins (n = 27, 71.1%) over fixed subunit-based resection (n = 11, 28.9%). Most surgeons (n = 29, 76.3%) performed neck dissection concurrent with TORS, and 89.5% (n = 34) routinely ligated external carotid artery branches. A minority of institutions (n = 17, 45.9%) endorsed a standardized TORS care pathway. Antibiotic choices and duration varied, the most common choice being ampicillin/sulbactam (n = 21, 55.3%), and the most common duration being 24 h or less (n = 22, 57.9%). Multimodal analgesia was used at 36 centers (94.7%), steroids at 31 centers (81.6%), and pharmacologic venous thromboembolic prophylaxis at 29 centers (76.3%). Nasogastric feeding tubes were placed during surgery at 20 institutions (54.1%). Speech-language pathologists routinely performed postoperative swallow evaluations at 29 (78.4%) sites. Practice patterns are variable among institutions performing TORS. While certain surgical and postoperative practices were quite common, many institutions reported no standard TORS care pathway. Further understanding of the impact of individual practices on outcomes is necessary to develop evidence-based perioperative protocols for TORS.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Enhanced recovery after surgery; Head and neck cancer; Oropharynx cancer; Transoral robotic surgery

Year:  2022        PMID: 35933632     DOI: 10.1007/s11701-022-01448-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Robot Surg        ISSN: 1863-2483


  39 in total

1.  Enhanced recovery protocol for transoral robotic surgery demonstrates improved analgesia and narcotic use reduction.

Authors:  Ashwin Ganti; Michael Eggerstedt; Kevin Grudzinski; Emily A Ramirez; Deborah Vaughan; Peter C Revenaugh; Kerstin Stenson; Samer Al-Khudari
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 1.808

Review 2.  Optimal Perioperative Care in Major Head and Neck Cancer Surgery With Free Flap Reconstruction: A Consensus Review and Recommendations From the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society.

Authors:  Joseph C Dort; D Gregory Farwell; Merran Findlay; Gerhard F Huber; Paul Kerr; Melissa A Shea-Budgell; Christian Simon; Jeffrey Uppington; David Zygun; Olle Ljungqvist; Jeffrey Harris
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 6.223

Review 3.  Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Bariatric Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations.

Authors:  A Thorell; A D MacCormick; S Awad; N Reynolds; D Roulin; N Demartines; M Vignaud; A Alvarez; P M Singh; D N Lobo
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Recovery after laparoscopic colonic surgery with epidural analgesia, and early oral nutrition and mobilisation.

Authors:  L Bardram; P Funch-Jensen; P Jensen; M E Crawford; H Kehlet
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1995-03-25       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for head and neck oncology patients.

Authors:  M J Coyle; B Main; C Hughes; R Craven; R Alexander; G Porter; S Thomas
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 2.597

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

Authors:  Gregory S Weinstein; Bert W O'Malley; J Scott Magnuson; William R Carroll; Kerry D Olsen; Lixia Daio; Eric J Moore; F Christopher Holsinger
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2012-07-02       Impact factor: 3.325

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

Authors:  À Roselló; R Albuquerque; X Roselló-Llabrés; A Marí-Roig; A Estrugo-Devesa; J López-López
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2020-09-01

8.  Feasibility of rapid discharge after transoral robotic surgery of the oropharynx.

Authors:  Jeremy D Richmon; Allen L Feng; Wuyang Yang; Heather Starmer; Harry Quon; Christine G Gourin
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2014-06-16       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 9.  Transoral robotic base of tongue reduction for obstructive sleep apnea: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Stephen C Miller; Shaun A Nguyen; Adrian A Ong; M Boyd Gillespie
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-06-27       Impact factor: 3.325

Review 10.  Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers.

Authors:  Peter T Dziegielewski; Stephen Y Kang; Enver Ozer
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 3.454

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.