Transoral Robotic Surgery versus Transoral Laser Microsurgery for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

J. Waxman, Ho-sheng Lin, S. Raza
{"title":"Transoral Robotic Surgery versus Transoral Laser Microsurgery for Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review","authors":"J. Waxman, Ho-sheng Lin, S. Raza","doi":"10.4172/2324-8785.1000346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser microsurgery (TLM), have undergone significant evolution for the treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell (OPSCC). However, few have directly compared both methodologies. The objective of this work was to summarize and compare published data on surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes of TORS and TLM for the treatment of OPSCC. \nMethods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases was conducted to review studies that reported outcomes of TORS or TLM for primary OPSCC. \nResults: Studies that reported outcomes of TORS or TLM for primary OPSCC were included. 24 TORS studies including 801 patients and 14 TLM studies including 823 patients were identified. Only retrospective and non-randomized prospective studies were found. Despite significant heterogeneity and incomplete data, TORS and TLM resulted in similar hospital lengths of stay, operative times, positive margins, complication profiles, and tracheostomy and gastrostomy rates. Limited data suggests similar impacts on swallow function and quality of life; however, this assessment was confounded by adjuvant treatment. While TLM studies reported worse oncological outcomes, this is likely due to larger, more advanced tumors in the TLM group. \nConclusions: Due to significant heterogeneity in study design, population characteristics, indications for adjuvant treatment, p16/ HPV status, and tumor stage, it was not possible to make any definitive conclusions about the superiority of one technique over the other. However, pooled analyses suggest that TORS and TLM result in similar surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes for the treatment of OPSCC. To accurately assess the impact of TORS versus TLM on outcomes, especially in combination with possible de-escalation adjuvant treatment protocols for HPV positive tumors, carefully constructed randomized controlled trials must be conducted.","PeriodicalId":90613,"journal":{"name":"Journal of otology & rhinology","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of otology & rhinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4172/2324-8785.1000346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) and transoral laser microsurgery (TLM), have undergone significant evolution for the treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell (OPSCC). However, few have directly compared both methodologies. The objective of this work was to summarize and compare published data on surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes of TORS and TLM for the treatment of OPSCC. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library databases was conducted to review studies that reported outcomes of TORS or TLM for primary OPSCC. Results: Studies that reported outcomes of TORS or TLM for primary OPSCC were included. 24 TORS studies including 801 patients and 14 TLM studies including 823 patients were identified. Only retrospective and non-randomized prospective studies were found. Despite significant heterogeneity and incomplete data, TORS and TLM resulted in similar hospital lengths of stay, operative times, positive margins, complication profiles, and tracheostomy and gastrostomy rates. Limited data suggests similar impacts on swallow function and quality of life; however, this assessment was confounded by adjuvant treatment. While TLM studies reported worse oncological outcomes, this is likely due to larger, more advanced tumors in the TLM group. Conclusions: Due to significant heterogeneity in study design, population characteristics, indications for adjuvant treatment, p16/ HPV status, and tumor stage, it was not possible to make any definitive conclusions about the superiority of one technique over the other. However, pooled analyses suggest that TORS and TLM result in similar surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes for the treatment of OPSCC. To accurately assess the impact of TORS versus TLM on outcomes, especially in combination with possible de-escalation adjuvant treatment protocols for HPV positive tumors, carefully constructed randomized controlled trials must be conducted.
经口机器人手术与经口激光显微手术治疗口咽鳞状细胞癌:系统综述
目的:经口机器人手术(TORS)和经口激光显微外科(TLM)在治疗口咽鳞状细胞(OPSCC)方面取得了重大进展。然而,很少有人直接比较这两种方法。这项工作的目的是总结和比较已发表的关于TORS和TLM治疗OPSCC的手术、功能和肿瘤学结果的数据。方法:检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、Web of Science和The Cochrane Library数据库的文献,回顾报告原发性OPSCC的TORS或TLM结果的研究。结果:纳入了报告原发性OPSCC的TORS或TLM结果的研究。确定了24项TORS研究(包括801名患者)和14项TLM研究(包括823名患者)。只发现了回顾性和非随机前瞻性研究。尽管存在显著的异质性和不完整的数据,但TORS和TLM导致了相似的住院时间、手术时间、阳性边缘、并发症情况以及气管造口术和胃造口术的发生率。有限的数据表明,对吞咽功能和生活质量也有类似的影响;然而,这种评估被辅助治疗所混淆。虽然TLM研究报告了更差的肿瘤学结果,但这可能是由于TLM组中更大、更晚期的肿瘤。结论:由于研究设计、人群特征、辅助治疗指征、p16/HPV状态和肿瘤分期的显著异质性,不可能对一种技术优于另一种技术得出任何明确的结论。然而,汇总分析表明,TORS和TLM在OPSCC的治疗中产生了相似的手术、功能和肿瘤学结果。为了准确评估TORS与TLM对结果的影响,特别是与HPV阳性肿瘤可能的降级辅助治疗方案相结合,必须进行精心构建的随机对照试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信