Transoral Robotic Surgery for Pharyngeal and Laryngeal Cancers-A Prospective Medium-Term Study

Robotic Surgery for Head and Neck Tumors: What are the Current Applications?

BACKGROUND

The journey from radical treatments to the precision of robotic surgery underscores a commitment to innovation and patient-centered care in the field of head and neck oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article provides a comprehensive overview that not only informs but also stimulates ongoing discourse and investigation into the optimization of patient care through robotic surgery. The literature on current robotic applications within head and neck region was systematically reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Thirty-four studies with a total of 1835 patients undergoing robotic surgery in head and neck region were included. Clinical staging, histological types, operative duration, postoperative complications, functional recovery and survival outcomes were compared and evaluated. Clinical outcomes have shown promising results and thus the indication on the robotic usage has no longer been limited to oropharyngeal region but from skull base to neck dissection. The latest advancement in robotic surgery further refines the capabilities of surgeons into previously difficult-to-access head and neck regions and heralds a new era of surgical treatment for head and neck oncology.

Are new and young generations of surgeons more aware of transoral robotic surgery than older ones? An international survey

The objective of this study is to investigate adoption, perception, and awareness of otolaryngologist-head neck surgeons (OTO-HNS) toward transoral robotic surgery (TORS) according to the surgeon experience. A total of 1,383 OTO-HNS of YO-IFOS and IFOS received an online survey dedicated to the adoption, perception, and awareness toward TORS. The following outcomes were compared between residents and fellows, young/middle-aged and older OTO-HNS: awareness/perception; indications; advantages; barriers and expected improvements of TORS practice. From the 357 responders (26%), 147 participants were residents and fellows; while 105 and 105 OTO-HNS reported 10 to 19, and more than 20 years of practice. The main barriers of using TORS included the cost and the availability of robot, and the lack of training opportunity. The better view of the operative field and the shorter patient hospital stay were considered as the main advantages. Older surgeons trust more likely in TORS benefits (p = 0.001) and surgical field view advantages (p = 0.037) compared to younger participants. TORS is an important surgical minimal invasive approach for the future for 46% of residents and fellows versus 61% of older OTO-HNS (p = 0.001). Compared to older OTO-HNS, residents and fellows reported more frequently that the lack of training opportunity is the main barrier of TORS (52% versus 12%; p = 0.001). Residents and fellows did not share the same expectations of robot improvement for the future than older OTO-HNS. Experienced OTO-HNS had better perception and trust toward TORS than residents and fellows. Residents and fellows identified the lack of training opportunity as the main barrier to the use of TORS. TORS access and training programs need to be improved in academic hospitals for residents and fellows.