Neck dissection with harmonic scalpel and electrocautery? A randomised study

Is Using the Harmonic Scalpel Better than Conventional Hemostasis in Neck Dissection? A Meta-Analysis

Study Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

The clinical decision to pursue harmonic scalpel (HS) method vs conventional hemostasis to treat head and neck cancers has been arguably predicated on the clinical outcomes observed. This study aims to evaluate the surgical outcomes of neck dissection between both techniques and perform an updated meta-analysis using the available literature.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library through 31st December 2021, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Outcome metrics included operative time and intraoperative blood loss. Secondary outcomes consisted of length of hospital stay, length of drain stay, total drain output, and postoperative complications. A meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager Version 5.3 (RevMan) software employing the Random Effects Model.

Results

We identified 114 articles, out of which 10 randomized control trials (RCTs) analyzing a combined total of 558 patients met the inclusion criteria after title and full-text screening. Meta-analysis shows the group treated with HS had a significantly shorter operative time. [MD = -23.21, 95% CI (-34.30, -12.12) P value <.0001 I2 = 92%] but an insignificant lesser intraoperative blood loss [MD = -61.53, 95% CI (-88.61, -34.45) P < .00001 I2 = 79%].

Conclusions

This study confirms that that HS use in neck dissection yields a reduced operative time and intra operative blood loss relative to conventional hemostasis. Furthermore, our paper shows no superiority of HS method over conventional hemostasis where length of hospital stays, length of drain stays, and postoperative complications are concerned. Future RCTs with high-level evidence may further elucidate the relative effectiveness of HS method over conventional hemostasis in treating head and neck cancers.

Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment

BACKGROUND

Surgery is a common treatment option in oral cavity cancer (and less frequently in oropharyngeal cancer) to remove the primary tumour and sometimes neck lymph nodes. People with early-stage disease may undergo surgery alone or surgery plus radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy/biotherapy, or a combination of these. Timing and extent of surgery varies. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the relative benefits and harms of different surgical treatment modalities for oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities, for primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Our primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-free survival, locoregional recurrence, and recurrence; and our secondary outcomes were adverse effects of treatment, quality of life, direct and indirect costs to patients and health services, and participant satisfaction. We used standard Cochrane methods. We reported survival data as hazard ratios (HRs). For overall survival, we reported the HR of mortality, and for disease-free survival, we reported the combined HR of new disease, progression, and mortality; therefore, HRs below 1 indicated improvement in these outcomes. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four new trials, bringing the total number of included trials to 15 (2820 participants randomised, 2583 participants analysed). For objective outcomes, we assessed four trials at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and eight at unclear risk. The trials evaluated nine comparisons; none compared different surgical approaches for excision of the primary tumour. Five trials evaluated elective neck dissection (ND) versus therapeutic (delayed) ND in people with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes. Elective ND compared with therapeutic ND probably improves overall survival (HR 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 883 participants; moderate certainty) and disease-free survival (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.70; I2 = 12%; 5 trials, 954 participants; moderate certainty), and probably reduces locoregional recurrence (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 458 participants; moderate certainty) and recurrence (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.70; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 633 participants; moderate certainty). Elective ND is probably associated with more adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.31, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.54; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 746 participants; moderate certainty). Two trials evaluated elective radical ND versus elective selective ND in people with oral cavity cancer, but we were unable to pool the data as the trials used different surgical procedures. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival (pooled measure not estimable; very low certainty). We are unsure if there is a difference in effect on disease-free survival (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.11; 1 trial, 104 participants; very low certainty) or recurrence (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.33; 1 trial, 143 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference between the interventions in terms of adverse events (1 trial, 148 participants; low certainty). Two trials evaluated superselective ND versus selective ND, but we were unable to use the data. One trial evaluated supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND in 332 participants. We were unable to use any of the primary outcome data. The evidence on adverse events was very uncertain, with more complications, pain, and poorer shoulder function in the modified radical ND group. One trial evaluated sentinel node biopsy versus elective ND in 279 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; low certainty), disease-free survival (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.07; low certainty), or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.19; low certainty). The trial provided no usable data for recurrence, and reported no adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy) in 564 participants. There is probably no difference between the interventions in overall survival (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; moderate certainty) or locoregional recurrence (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06; moderate certainty). One trial evaluated surgery plus radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone and provided very low-certainty evidence of better overall survival in the surgery plus radiotherapy group (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59; 35 participants). The data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and had multiple protocol violations. In terms of adverse events, subcutaneous fibrosis was more frequent in the surgery plus radiotherapy group, but there were no differences in other adverse events (very low certainty). One trial evaluated surgery versus radiotherapy alone for oropharyngeal cancer in 68 participants. There may be little or no difference between the interventions for overall survival (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.09 to 7.46; low certainty) or disease-free survival (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.22; low certainty). For adverse events, there were too many outcomes to draw reliable conclusions. One trial evaluated surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy versus chemotherapy. We were unable to use the data for any of the outcomes reported (very low certainty).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-certainty evidence based on five trials that elective neck dissection of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary oral cavity tumour is superior to therapeutic neck dissection, with increased survival and disease-free survival, and reduced locoregional recurrence. There was moderate-certainty evidence from one trial of no difference between positron emission tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy versus planned neck dissection in terms of overall survival or locoregional recurrence. The evidence for each of the other seven comparisons came from only one or two studies and was assessed as low or very low-certainty.

An umbrella review of the surgical performance of Harmonic ultrasonic devices and impact on patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

For thirty years, the Harmonic scalpel has been used for precise dissection, sealing and transection. There are numerous meta-analyses on individual surgical procedures with Harmonic, but no overarching review covering all the areas. This umbrella review seeks to summarize the clinical results from the use of Harmonic across surgical fields and broadly quantify its effects on patient outcomes.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases were searched for meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Harmonic devices to conventional techniques or advanced bipolar (ABP) devices. For each procedure type, the most comprehensive MAs were evaluated. RCTs not already analysed in a MA were also included. Operating time, length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, drainage volume, pain, and overall complications were evaluated, and the methodological quality and certainty of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-four systematic literature reviews were identified on colectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, gastrectomy, mastectomy, flap harvesting, cholecystectomy, thyroidectomy, tonsillectomy, and neck dissection. There were also 83 RCTs included. In every MA evaluated, Harmonic devices were associated with either statistically significant or numerical improvements in every outcome compared with conventional techniques; most MAs reported a reduction in operating time of ≥ 25 min. Harmonic versus ABP device MAs in colectomy and thyroidectomy showed no significant differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Across surgical procedures, Harmonic devices demonstrated improved patient outcomes for operating time, length of stay, intraoperative bleeding, drainage volume, pain, and overall complications compared to conventional techniques. Additional studies are required to assess differences between Harmonic and ABP devices.

Monopolar electrocautery versus sharp dissection in the neck dissection: a retrospective study

The cold scalpel/scissors (CS) and the monopolar electrocautery (ME) are still the most commonly used instruments for neck dissection in head and neck oncology. However, a direct comparison of these techniques does not exist. This study aims to compare these techniques concerning blood loss, the decline of hemoglobin levels, and surgery duration. Data on 200 patients who received tumor resection, neck dissection and either a radial forearm free flap (RFFF)or a primary closure (PC) were examined retrospectively. The patients were divided according to the performed defect closure (RFFF or PC) and the main instrument usedfor the beck dissection (Group 1: RFFF and ME, Group 2: RFFF and CS, Group 3: PC and ME Group 4: PC and CS). The intraoperative blood loss, decline of hemoglobin values and surgery duration were analyzed and compared between the corresponding groups. The patients where the ME was used lost on average 409.93 ml (group 1 vs. 2) and 242.4 ml (group 3 vs. 4) less blood. The median decrease in the hemoglobin levels was by 1.01 g/dL (group 1 vs. 2) and 0.85 g/dL (group 3 vs. 4) lower for the ME. The median surgery duration was by 102 min (group 1 vs. 2) and 83 min (group 3 vs. 4) shorterfor the ME. All differences were statistically significant. Traditional scalpel and scissors used for neck dissection lead to significantly higher blood loss and longer operation time than the monopolar electrocautery.

Evidence from Clinical Studies Related to Dermatologic Surgeries for Skin Cancer

Simple Summary

Although significant progress in pharmacotherapy for skin cancer has been made in the past several years, surgical removal of primary skin cancer is still the first choice of treatment unless distant metastases are evident. In the surgical treatment of primary skin tumors, the surgical margin is critical not only for reducing the possibility of tumor recurrence but also for minimizing the cosmetic and functional complications associated with wide local excision. In contrast, dermatologic surgeries including lymph node dissection and skin graft can cause various complications, and these complications are frequently associated with significant morbidity and discomfort. In this review, we summarize the evidence from previous clinical studies regarding the optimal surgical margin for skin cancer and the methods for diminishing the complications associated with dermatologic surgery.

Abstract

Despite the significant progress made in the past several years in pharmacotherapies for skin cancer, such as BRAF/MEK inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and Hedgehog pathway inhibitors, surgical removal of primary skin cancer is still the first choice of treatment unless distant metastases are evident. In cases of lymph node metastases with clinically palpable lymphadenopathy, lymph node dissection (LND) is typically performed for most skin cancers. In the surgical treatment of primary skin tumors, the surgical margin is critical not only for reducing the possibility of tumor recurrence but also for minimizing the cosmetic and functional complications associated with wide local excision. In contrast, dermatologic surgery can cause various complications. Although skin graft is frequently used for reconstruction of the surgical defect, extensive graft necrosis may develop if optimal stabilization of the graft is not obtained. LND also sometimes causes complications such as intraoperative or postoperative bleeding and postoperative lymphoceles. Moreover, as in other types of surgery, surgical site infection, intraoperative anxiety, and intraoperative and postoperative pain may also develop. These complications are frequently associated with significant morbidity and discomfort. In this review, we summarize the evidence from previous clinical studies regarding the optimal surgical margin for skin cancer and the methods for diminishing the complications associated with dermatologic surgery.

Neck dissection with harmonic instruments and electrocautery: a prospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

Harmonic instruments are becoming popular in head and neck surgeries. In this prospective, randomized study, the efficacy of the harmonic instruments and electrosurgical technique is compared.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 48 patients undergoing unilateral neck dissection were divided into two groups. In one group, surgery was performed using conventional hemostatic instruments while in the other, only harmonic instruments were used. The two techniques were then compared with regard to intra- and post-operative blood loss, complications in operating time, drain, tracheotomy and nasogastric tube duration, and post-operative hospital stay.

RESULTS

Differences in operative time (P = 0.647), total suction drainage (P = 0.362) and time that drains (P = 0.404), nasogastric tube (P = 0.378), and tracheotomy (P = 0.052) were kept in place and proved not significant. The average blood loss during surgery was significantly greater in the CH group (P = 0.003) as the number of hemoclips and resorbable ligature used (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to what has been reported up to now, our study did not reveal a net advantage in the use of harmonic instruments with respect to classical instruments in terms of surgical outcome. On the contrary, harmonic tools had a higher complication rate (i.e., salivary fistula and lymphatic leak) probably due to the decreased ability of this instruments to permanently close glandular structures and lymphatic ducts. In these cases, a closure technique such as electrocautery or classic knot-tying should be used.

Surgical rescue for persistent head and neck cancer after first-line treatment

PURPOSE

Surgical rescue is a treatment option for persistent disease after first-line treatment treatment of head and neck cancer (HNC).

METHODS

Patients with persistent HNC treated with rescue surgery between 2008 and 2016 were included. Patients who received a rescue neck dissection (ND only) and who received primary site surgery ± ND were analysed separately (primary site surgery ± ND).

RESULTS

During the observation period, 35 patients received ND only and 17 primary site surgery ± ND. No perioperative mortality was observed. In nine patients with ND only and 12 patients with primary site surgery ± ND at least one complication was encountered. 41/52 (79%) patients had a complete response. Median overall survival of patients receiving rescue surgery was 56 months (95% CI 44-69 months). Median overall survival was best for patients with initial laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancer and worst for patients with hypopharyngeal cancer (p = 0.02). Functional deficits following rescue surgery were mainly observed in the domains speech, nutrition, and shoulder/arm mobility. The risk of functional impairment was higher for patients with rescue surgery at the primary tumor site (OR 2.5 ± 2; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSION

Rescue surgery offers patients with resectable, persistent disease a realistic chance to achieve long-term survival. Especially patients with laryngeal and oropharyngeal cancer profited from rescue surgery. Rescue neck dissection is an effective and safe procedure. Patients with rescue surgery at the primary tumor site ± ND should expect complications and permanent functional impairment.

Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment

BACKGROUND

Surgery is an important part of the management of oral cavity cancer with regard to both the removal of the primary tumour and removal of lymph nodes in the neck. Surgery is less frequently used in oropharyngeal cancer. Surgery alone may be treatment for early-stage disease or surgery may be used in combination with radiotherapy, chemotherapy and immunotherapy/biotherapy. There is variation in the recommended timing and extent of surgery in the overall treatment regimens of people with these cancers. This is an update of a review originally published in 2007 and first updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which surgical treatment modalities for oral and oropharyngeal cancers result in increased overall survival, disease-free survival and locoregional control and reduced recurrence. To determine the implication of treatment modalities in terms of morbidity, quality of life, costs, hospital days of treatment, complications and harms.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 December 2017) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 December 2017). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials where more than 50% of participants had primary tumours of the oral cavity or oropharynx, or where separate data could be extracted for these participants, and that compared two or more surgical treatment modalities, or surgery versus other treatment modalities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We collected adverse events data from included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included trials to 12 (2300 participants; 2148 with cancers of the oral cavity). We assessed four trials at high risk of bias, and eight at unclear. None of the included trials compared different surgical approaches for the excision of the primary tumour. We grouped the trials into seven main comparisons.Future research may change the findings as there is only very low-certainty evidence available for all results.Five trials compared elective neck dissection (ND) with therapeutic (delayed) ND in participants with oral cavity cancer and clinically negative neck nodes, but differences in type of surgery and duration of follow-up made meta-analysis inappropriate in most cases. Four of these trials reported overall and disease-free survival. The meta-analyses of two trials found no evidence of either intervention leading to greater overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.72; 571 participants), or disease-free survival (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.11; 571 participants), but one trial found a benefit for elective supraomohyoid ND compared to therapeutic ND in overall survival (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 67 participants) and disease-free survival (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.84; 67 participants). Four individual trials assessed locoregional recurrence, but could not be meta-analysed; one trial favoured elective ND over therapeutic delayed ND, while the others were inconclusive.Two trials compared elective radical ND with elective selective ND, but we were unable to pool the data for two outcomes. Neither study found evidence of a difference in overall survival or disease-free survival. A single trial found no evidence of a difference in recurrence.One trial compared surgery plus radiotherapy with radiotherapy alone, but data were unreliable because the trial stopped early and there were multiple protocol violations.One trial comparing positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) following chemoradiotherapy (with ND only if no or incomplete response) versus planned ND (either before or after chemoradiotherapy), showed no evidence of a difference in mortality (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.31; 564 participants). The trial did not provide usable data for the other outcomes.Three single trials compared: surgery plus adjunctive radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy; supraomohyoid ND versus modified radical ND; and super selective ND versus selective ND. There were no useable data from these trials.The reporting of adverse events was poor. Four trials measured adverse events. Only one of the trials reported quality of life as an outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Twelve randomised controlled trials evaluated ND surgery in people with oral cavity cancers; however, the evidence available for all comparisons and outcomes is very low certainty, therefore we cannot rely on the findings. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about elective ND of clinically negative neck nodes at the time of removal of the primary tumour compared to therapeutic (delayed) ND. Two trials combined in meta-analysis suggested there is no difference between these interventions, while one trial (which evaluated elective supraomohyoid ND) found that it may be associated with increased overall and disease-free survival. One trial found elective ND reduced locoregional recurrence, while three were inconclusive. There is no evidence that radical ND increases overall or disease-free survival compared to more conservative ND surgery, or that there is a difference in mortality between PET-CT surveillance following chemoradiotherapy versus planned ND (before or after chemoradiotherapy). Reporting of adverse events in all trials was poor and it was not possible to compare the quality of life of people undergoing different surgical treatments.

Use of ultrasonic scalpel and monopolar electrocautery for skin incisions in neck dissection: a prospective randomized trial

PURPOSE

Ultrasonic scalpel (UC) and monopolar electrocautery (ME) are standard equipment for soft tissue surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare intraoperative and postoperative patterns of patients using either UC or ME for skin incisions in neck dissection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a prospective randomized study of 30 patients, the thermal effects of UC (n = 15) and ME (n = 15) were examined using real-time infrared thermographic imaging. Additionally, tissue damage was evaluated histopathologically. The other measured variables were operation and bleeding time, postoperative pain score (only neck incision area), in-patient time, and complications.

RESULTS

UC significantly reduces the thermal effects, compared to ME (p < 0.001). The mean depth of tissue damage (i.e., necrosis) was 272.7 μm for UC and 284.7 μm for ME with no significant difference (p = 0.285). From the third postoperative day, patients treated using UC had noticeably less pain in the neck incision area (t3 p = 0.010; t4 p < 0.001; t5 p < 0.005). Cutting time was reduced for ME by 36.1 s (p < 0.001) and the bleeding time was decreased by 40.9 s for UC (p < 0.001). The total preparation time was the same (p = 0.402). When comparing in-patient time (p = 0.723), as well as complications, no significant differences were seen.

CONCLUSION

UC results in less postoperative pain and less bleeding in the neck incision area. Accordingly, UC is superior to ME for skin incisions in neck dissection.