Robot-assisted level II-IV neck dissection through a modified facelift incision: initial North American experience

Albergotti, William Greer; Byrd, J. Kenneth; Almeida, John R. de; Kim, Seungwon; Duvvuri, Umamaheswar

doi:10.1002/rcs.1585

Cited by 32 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The gasless unilateral axillary approach, gasless unilateral axillo‐breast approach, bilateral axillo‐breast approach, and combined transaxillary and retroauricular approach were designated together as the transaxillary technique. The retroauricular, postauricular, and modified facelift approaches comprised the retroauricular technique …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following this, Kim et al combined the facelift and transaxillary approach to perform neck dissections in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Multiple case series and comparative studies, primarily out of South Korea, subsequently highlighted the feasibility of nodal dissection through robotic transaxillary, retroauricular, and modified facelift approaches . Despite the embrace of this technology in East Asia, studies remain limited in the head and neck surgical literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Robotic versus conventional neck dissection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional neck dissection in patients with head and neck malignancy.Methods: An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases was conducted. We included studies with direct comparisons of robotic and open neck dissections and performed dual, independent data extraction for primary outcomes of nodal yield, recurrence rate, subjective cosmetic assessment, operative time, length of stay, and rates of perioperative complications. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean difference (SMD), absolute risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Eleven comparative studies comprising 225 robotic and 430 open neck dissections met the final selection criteria. All studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Robotic surgery improved cosmesis (SMD 1.15, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56) but also increased operative time (SMD 1.94, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.63). Total nodal yield, pathological nodal yield, recurrence rate, rates of perioperative complications, and length of stay were not significantly different between the two groups, and the 95% CIs suggested that false negative results were unlikely. The results remained consistent after stratification by pathology and robotic technique.Conclusion: Although robotic neck dissection may offer similar perioperative outcomes compared to conventional neck dissection, it requires significantly more operative time. Whereas cosmesis was found to be superior among the robotic cohort, this must be viewed cautiously given the nonvalidated measurement tool that was used and the inherent reporting bias associated with it.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic versus conventional neck dissection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1,2 We devised procedures for robot-assisted neck dissection (RAND) of regional nodal metastases in head and neck cancers that are slowly gaining in popularity among head and neck surgeons regardless of patient's ethnicities. [3][4][5][6][7] However, the timeline ref-…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Neck Dissection in Head and Neck Cancer

Kim

Ban

Chang

et al. 2014

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, to overcome the limitations mentioned above, robot-assisted radical or selective neck dissections via a retroauricular approach or a modified face-lift approach have been reported. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 The results suggested that the robot-assisted surgery lasted longer than conventional surgery, but the intraoperative bleeding, lymph node retrieval, volume of drainage, hospitalization and related complications of robot-assisted neck dissection (RAND) were similar to those of open neck dissection. Furthermore, the patients who underwent robotic surgery were much more satisfied with the postsurgical aesthetics than those who underwent open surgery.…”

Section: Clinical Applications Of Robotic Surgery In the Head And Neckmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic surgical systems in maxillofacial surgery: a review

Liu

Shi

et al. 2017

Int J Oral Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout the twenty-first century, robotic surgery has been used in multiple oral surgical procedures for the treatment of head and neck tumors and non-malignant diseases. With the assistance of robotic surgical systems, maxillofacial surgery is performed with less blood loss, fewer complications, shorter hospitalization and better cosmetic results than standard open surgery. However, the application of robotic surgery techniques to the treatment of head and neck diseases remains in an experimental stage, and the long-lasting effects on surgical morbidity, oncologic control and quality of life are yet to be established. More well-designed studies are needed before this approach can be recommended as a standard treatment paradigm. Nonetheless, robotic surgical systems will inevitably be extended to maxillofacial surgery. This article reviews the current clinical applications of robotic surgery in the head and neck region and highlights the benefits and limitations of current robotic surgical systems.

show abstract

Robot-assisted level II-IV neck dissection through a modified facelift incision: initial North American experience

Abstract: Robot-assisted selective neck dissection of levels II-IV is feasible through a modified facelift incision. Our initial data suggest that this procedure is surgically sound. It should be applied by experienced surgeons who wish to avoid a cervical incision.

Cited by 32 publications

References 16 publications

Robotic versus conventional neck dissection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Robotic versus conventional neck dissection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Learning Curve for Robot-Assisted Neck Dissection in Head and Neck Cancer

Robotic surgical systems in maxillofacial surgery: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About