A prospective randomised trial of LigaSure Small Jaw® versus conventional neck dissection in head and neck cancer patients

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.

Comparison of surgical morbidities between LigaSure™ and conventional techniques in inguinal or ilioinguinal lymph node dissection for skin cancer: A single center retrospective study

Skin cancer patients with clinical nodal disease or whose positive sentinel nodes had great tumor burden remain candidates for regional lymph node dissections. Among these patients, inguinal or ilioinguinal lymph node dissection is frequently required in clinical practice, which is associated with significant postoperative morbidity-including lymphatic leakage. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of LigaSure™, an electrothermal bipolar vessel sealing system, in reducing lymphatic leakage in inguinal or ilioinguinal lymph node dissection. In total, 58 patients who received inguinal or ilioinguinal lymph node dissection (conventional group, 48; LigaSure™ group, 10) and shared similar characteristics were included in this study. Lymphatic leakage after drain removal was significantly lower in the LigaSure™ group than that in the conventional group (present ratio, 0% vs. 37%; p = 0.02). The daily lymphatic drainage volume also tended to be lower in the LigaSure™ than that in the conventional group, with significant differences on postoperative day 1 (p = 0.02). Other perioperative outcomes including the operating time, intraoperative blood loss, time to drain removal, duration of hospital stay, flap necrosis, and wound infection showed no significant differences between the two groups. The use of the LigaSure™ in inguinal or ilioinguinal lymph node dissection for the treatment of skin cancer could reduce the incidence of postoperative lymphatic leakage after drain removal.

LigaSure small jaw versus conventional neck dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Neck dissection has a central role in the management of head and neck cancers. This systematic review aimed to compare the intraoperative and postoperative parameters between conventional and LigaSure Small Jaw (LSJ)-assisted neck dissection.

Methods

PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched.

independently by two authors for relevant articles comparing the outcomes of conventional and LSJ-assisted neck dissection. Data from each study were extracted, and a random-effects model was used in the pooled analysis.

Results

Compared with conventional techniques, LSJ-assisted neck dissection was associated with a significantly reduced operative time. The rates of postoperative hematoma, infection, amount of intraoperative blood loss, the length of hospital stay and the drainage amount showed no significant intergroup differences.

Conclusions

The meta-analysis provides evidence that properly using LSJ may reduce the operative time compared with that of conventional techniques. Surgeons may consider using LSJ in neck dissection according to personal experiences.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40463-021-00504-2.

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.

Efficacy and safety of a vessel sealing system in oral cancer resection and reconstructive surgery

OBJECTIVE

Currently, many studies are being performed that focus on the efficacy and safety of the vessel sealing system (VSS) in various fields of surgery. However, in the field of oral cancer surgery, the efficacy and safety of VSS use have not been clarified.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-one patients underwent oral cancer resection and reconstructive surgery. They were divided into two groups: Ligasure vessel sealing system (LVSS) group and conventional surgery (CS) as control. Intra-operative blood loss, operating time, and incidence of post-operative complications and recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

LVSS use significantly reduced intra-operative blood loss. The operating time was shortened only in mandibular gingiva cancer surgery. There were no differences between the two groups with regard to the incidence of post-operative complications and recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

LVSS use was found to be effective and proved to be efficient and safe, and may be useful in oral cancer surgery.