Abstract
There has been a significant increase in concern towards improving aesthetic and functional outcomes without compromising the oncologic effectiveness in head and neck surgery. The aim of the current study is to assess the feasibility and oncological outcome of the retroauricular approach for endoscopic and robot-assisted selective neck dissection (SND) for oral cancer in comparison with the conventional SND. A retrospective single institute cohort study was designed. Patients undergoing an SND for oral cavity carcinoma were included and allocated into two groups: (1) retroauricular approach group for endoscopic-assisted or robot-assisted SND or (2) transcervical approach group for the conventional SND. Primary endpoint was the perioperative and postoperative treatment outcomes. Secondary endpoint was the early oncologic outcome. Sixty patients were included (17 retroauricular; 43 conventional). For the primary outcome, only a significant longer operative time in the retroauricular group was identified. No unintentional injury or conversion to the conventional surgery was recorded. There was no significant difference identified in the early oncologic outcome, including number of retrieved lymph nodes and disease-free survival. Postoperative aesthetic results were considered superior when subjectively compared to the conventional approaches. Endoscopic and robot-assisted SND via a retroauricular approach is feasible, safe, and oncologically efficient when compared with the conventional surgery in a short follow-up scenario. It can be used for selected cases with a clear cosmetic benefit. However, further research with longer follow-up and patient satisfaction analysis is mandatory.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
In recent years, oncologic surgery has been making remarkable progress to improve functional outcome while maintaining oncologic safety. Especially technological advances in endoscopic and robot-assisted procedures have made a considerable contribution by facilitating less and even minimal invasive approaches. Studies have not only demonstrated potential improvements in oncological outcome by using these techniques, but also better functional outcome, minimal morbidity, and an increased health-related quality of life [1, 2]. Therefore, many of these procedures are now clinically applied within several surgical subspecialties, including head and neck surgery [3].
Head and neck surgery is characterized by a complex anatomy and manipulation of delicate and important structures in frequently difficult accessible and visualized areas. Due to various concerns of exposure and visualization, many head and neck surgeons remain hesitant to use minimal invasive techniques. This would suggest that the majority of patients are still submitted to extensive open surgical approaches, resulting in different degrees of aesthetic and functional sequelae, which itself might be associated with psychosocial repercussions [4]. Therefore, despite the earlier mentioned obstacles and concerns, there is a continuous desire to investigate and explore new indications for the minimal invasive techniques in head and neck surgery, such as selective neck dissection [3, 5].
The wish to limit aesthetic and psychological consequences has also driven the development of different remote access approaches to the neck [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Due to limitations of certain approaches, such as the transaxillary access, an alternative approach via the retroauricular access has been introduced [6, 10, 12,13,14, 16,17,18,19,20,21]. Proponents advocate that this technique should lead to reduction of postoperative complications, better cosmetic results, similar oncologic outcome (number of retrieved lymph nodes), and decreased risk of exposure of large cervical vessels in case of flap necrosis or dehiscence [9,10,11, 13, 14, 22].
Up till now, there is only limited evidence available on endoscopic and robotic neck dissection via a retroauricular approach. Yet, before broad clinical implementation, the feasibility of these procedures has to be carefully and objectively assessed together with the oncological outcome. In addition, complications should be taken into consideration, as new potential complications have been described [5, 23, 24]. Thereafter, the actual reduction of functional and cosmetic morbidity (e.g., large visible neck scars) has to be evaluated, as well as costs, as economic viability may limit the use on a larger scale [3]. Depending on financial resources, alternative use of video-assisted endoscopic techniques instead of robot-assisted techniques might be a more feasible option to optimize aesthetic and functional outcomes [22].
The aim of the current study is to retrospectively assess the feasibility and oncological outcomes of the retroauricular approach for endoscopic and robot-assisted selective neck dissection (SND) in a single institute cohort undergoing treatment for oral cancer and compare these results to the conventional SND.
Materials and methods
Study design
A retrospective cohort study was designed. The cohort consisted of all patients with an oral cavity carcinoma (OCC) who underwent a selective neck dissection (SND) as part of the primary treatment from July 2014 to October 2015 at the Department of Head and Neck Surgery and Otorhinolaryngology of the AC Camargo Cancer Center, São Paulo, Brazil. All eligible patients had a histology confirmed diagnosis by biopsy or local excision from the primary site and were clinically staged by radiologic examination and fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) if indicated. Patients with bulky neck disease (cN3), a primary tumor extending to the adjacent neck compartment, distant metastasis (cM1), or a history of previous neck surgery were excluded from the study.
Depending on the primary predictor variable of this study, the surgical approach, patients were allocated into two groups: (1) the retroauricular approach group for either endoscopic-assisted or robot-assisted SND or (2) the transcervical approach group for the conventional SND.
Surgical technique
Retroauricular approach
For both the endoscopic-assisted and robot-assisted SND, a retroauricular approach was performed as previously described by the Yonsei Medical Center in Seoul [12, 13, 25]. Following retroauricular skin incision, skin flap is dissected just below the platysma muscle providing exposure of the neck levels to be dissected. The next step is to dissect level II and III, from lateral to medial, starting with conventional instruments and a head light, very similar to the transcervical approach. All dissection lateral to the carotid artery is performed with a direct view. Following, for dissection medial to the carotid artery, Bookwalter Retractor® is placed keeping the skin flap raised and video-assisted or robotic dissection is performed finishing levels II–III and then dissecting level I (Fig. 1).
Transcervical approach
The conventional SND via a transcervical curvilinear skin incision along a natural skin crease was performed accordingly to established surgical techniques.
For all three approaches, the SND was conducted by dissection of the lymphoadipose tissue in the desired levels with preservation of the marginal mandibular branch of the facial nerve and the vagal, hypoglossal lingual, spinal accessory, and phrenic nerve (Fig. 2).
Data acquisition and analysis
Electronic medical charts were reviewed. Demographic and clinicopathological characteristics data were recorded. Perioperative and postoperative treatment outcomes of the patients up to the first postoperative month, total number of lymph nodes (LN) retrieved, adjuvant therapy, and disease-free survival (DFS using follow-up time and disease status) were evaluated and compared.
Besides descriptive analysis, statistical comparison between the different surgical groups was computed as well as correlations between variables using the Chi-square test and two-tailed Fisher exact test for categorical data and the Mann–Whitney U test for continuous data. Survival analysis was done using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank test. Probabilities of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
The study was approved by the local institutional review board.
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.
Results
Sixty patients were identified and included in the study. Patients were clinically staged as cT1N0M0 to cT4N2cM0. In total, 43 underwent a conventional approach for the SND and 17 underwent a retroauricular approach for 11 endoscopic-assisted and 6 robotic-assisted SND (Fig. 3).
Conventional approach
Forty-three patients were submitted to a conventional SND via a conventional approach, of which 27 (62.8%) were male. The mean age at diagnosis was 58 years (range 29–85) and the mean BMI was 24.3 kg/m2 (range 18–40). All cases were diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Fifteen cases (34.9%) underwent a bilateral neck dissection, resulting in a total of 58 SNDs by the conventional approach, of which 18 included levels I–IV, 12 included levels I–IIa–III (sparing level IIb), and 28 included levels I–III. The SND was in 38 patients (88%) preceded by therapeutic excision of the primary tumor and in 27 (62.8%) followed by a reconstructive procedure (25 free vascularized flaps and 2 regional flaps). All descriptive information, including clinical and pathological staging, is shown in Table 1.
Considering the perioperative and postoperative treatment outcomes, the mean total surgical time was 482 min (range 90–870), including primary tumor resection and reconstruction. Thirty-four patients (79.1%) were admitted to ICU for the first postoperative day and eight patients (18.6%) received a blood transfusion during hospital admission (all eight submitted to reconstructive procedures). Mean duration of drainage was 8 days (range 3–16). Twenty-one (48.8%) patients suffered from local postoperative complications in the neck, including two cervical hematomas and 16 infections. One systemic complication was encountered (pneumonia with refractory sepsis). Three patients (7.0%) underwent a re-intervention during the postoperative period. The mean total length of hospital stay was 14.3 days (range 2–49).
These outcome measures were compared after stratification for need of any type of regional or distant reconstructive flap procedure. Those with reconstructive procedures had statistically significant worse results for all primary outcome indicators, except reoperation (Table 2). This is further illustrated in Tables 3 and 4, demonstrating perioperative and postoperative treatment outcome numbers and percentages after the conventional SND with a conventional approach in the patients without (Table 3) and with (Table 4) reconstruction.
The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes for the 58 SNDs was 27.7 nodes (6–57). In the group of 28 conventional I–III SNDs, the number of retrieved nodes varied from 12 to 49 (median 29.5). In 12 dissections, the level IIb was spared (I–IIa–III SND), resulting in 6–34 resected lymph nodes (mean 19.3). In the 18 level I–IV SNDs, 10–57 nodes were removed (mean 33.2) (Table 5). The mean follow-up time was 17.3 months (range 1–27). One patient died within the first postoperative month due to a pneumonia and refractory sepsis. Regarding adjuvant treatment, 14 (32.5%) patients were submitted to radiotherapy and 11 (25.6%) to chemoradiation. Ten (23.2%) patients presented with recurrent disease during follow-up, of which two (4.7%) had a recurrence in the dissected neck, leading to a DFS of 76.8%.
Retroauricular approach
In the retroauricular group, there were 17 patients of which 7 (41%) were female. Eleven patients underwent endoscopic-assisted and six underwent robotic-assisted SND. The mean age was 53.4 years (range 13–74 years) and mean BMI was 24.9 kg/m2 (range 17–35). One patient was diagnosed with a mucoepidermoid carcinoma of the tongue; all others with an SCC. Due to a bilateral SND in 2 patients, this group contains 12 endoscopy-assisted SND I–III in 11 patients and 7 robotic SND (6 SND I–III; 1 SND I–IV) in 6 patients. In 4 of the 18 SND I–III, the level IIb was spared. In 14 patients (82.4%), resection of primary tumor was performed simultaneously with the retroauricular SND. In 6 of these patients, there was a need for reconstruction with a free vascularized flap, which could be performed without additional skin incisions. Seven patients were submitted to tracheostomy.
For this group, the total surgical time varied considerably especially due to primary tumor resection and reconstruction via minimal access (range 159–969 min). When focusing only on the SND, the estimated operating time for flap raising, retractor placement, and conventional dissection under direct visualization lateral to the carotid artery ranged from 30 to 75 min. Additional 30–105 min were needed for completing the endoscopy-assisted dissection medial to the carotid artery. Docking of the da Vinci Si system usually was done in about 5–10 min. The mean console time for the robotic procedures was 57 min (range 48–80). No intra-operative complication or unintentional injury was recorded and 4 patients (23.5%) (all submitted to reconstructive procedures) needed blood transfusion during admission. Drains were removed after a mean time of 5.5 days (range 3–9). Two local postoperative complications (11.8%) were encountered. One patient presented with a cervical hemorrhage during extubation following an endoscopic SND I–III, which was resolved by re-exploration using the same approach and ligation of a muscular vessel in level IIB. The other case concerned a surgical site infection of the neck treated with needle aspiration and antibiotics without further complications. We also observed two of our early cases presenting with permanent marginal branch paresis (11.8%), and other five (29.6%) with transient paresis. Three patients (17.6%) suffered from systemic complications (pneumonia) and one had surgical infection in oral cavity, probably related to the primary tumor resection and reconstruction (three of them received free-flap). One patient (5.9%) underwent reoperation because of partial flap loss (skin island). The mean total length of hospital stay was 8.8 days (range 1–50). Excluding patients that received free-flap reconstruction, we had a mean length of stay of 5 days and considering only the three patients that were not submitted to primary tumor resection at the same time, the length of stay was 2 days or less. These outcome measures, again stratified for need of reconstruction, are shown in Tables 3 and 4.
Considering the oncological outcome, the mean number of retrieved LNs was 23 (range 12–52). Excluding the SND I–III that preserved level IIb and the SND I–IV, we had 14 SND I–III with a mean number of 28 (range 13–52) retrieved LNs (Table 5). This group had a mean total follow-up time of 18.6 months (range 10–27). Eight (47%) patients received adjuvant treatment, of which 6 (35.23%) received radiotherapy and 2 (11.8%) chemoradiation. During follow-up, four (23.5%) recurrences were diagnosed leading to a DFS of 76.5%. Two (11.8%) patients had recurrence in a dissected neck.
Comparison of the conventional and retroauricular approach
Comparison of both groups focused on the primary endpoint using peri and postoperative outcome indicators is shown in Tables 1, 3, and 4. In the procedures without reconstruction, surgical time was significantly longer for the retroauricular approach. However, for cases that received major reconstruction, the incidence of local complications and surgical site infection was significantly higher in the conventional group. Although we are aware of a significant rate of marginal branch paresis following the conventional neck dissection in our center, we were not able to precisely assess that in this retrospective study and compare it with the rate found in retroauricular group.
Although the follow-up time was short, oncologic outcome was compared for the two groups using the number of retrieved lymph nodes and disease-free survival (DFS). Stratifying neck dissections by levels resected, we did not find any significant difference in the number of retrieved lymph nodes described in the pathology reports (Table 5; Figs. 4, 5). In addition, there was no significant difference in DFS when comparing the conventional and retroauricular approach, even after stratification for TNM stage (Figs. 6, 7, 8).
Discussion
This aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the endoscopic and robotic-assisted selective neck dissection via a retroauricular approach. Currently, there is no FDA approval for this indication, making the use of this technique off-label. It is only applied in a few departments around the world and evidence in English literature is limited and originates predominantly from a single department describing experiences in the Asian population. Smaller contributions come from Europe [18] and Northern America [16]. Interestingly, population demographics can be a limiting factor in the applicability of these new techniques due to anatomical restrictions. Therefore, by reporting on the first single institute cohort from Latin America, this study adds valuable information on minimal invasive and remote access surgery of the neck in oral cavity cancer. By including patients with different clinical stages of neck disease (N0–2) and patients undergoing reconstructive procedures through the same remote access approach, the results truly reflect daily clinical practice and make this a unique and innovative study. However, as most retrospective studies, also this report has some methodological limitations such as inclusion bias and the lack of a case-matched control group. Although the study sample is small, it reflects our initial experience, and with our increasing experience with retroauricular endoscopic and robotic neck dissection, we will have larger series with longer follow-up in a near future.
The advent of minimally invasive surgical techniques began as early as the 1980s, soon followed by the introduction of surgical robotics in 1985 [26]. It is characterized by a magnified, illuminated, and adequate operative view and allows the surgeon to identify anatomy more easily and perform an accurate surgical dissection and complete tumor resection. In 1997, Gagner described a subtotal parathyroidectomy as the first totally endoscopic-assisted procedure in head and neck surgery [27]. Many studies followed on video-assisted and endoscopic procedures in this field. However, recent research focus has been shifting more towards implementation of the da Vinci surgical robot, as this technique addresses some drawbacks of endoscopic surgery. These limitations of endoscopic surgery include a reduced range of motion [11, 14, 21, 23, 28, 29] with various collisions between operator and assistant [14, 21, 29], a two-dimensional view with lack of depth perception [11, 14, 21, 28, 29], impaired eye-hand coordination [11, 21, 29], minimal tactile sensation [11, 28], and a steep learning curve [11, 14, 29]. Use of a robotic surgical system offers the advance of a stable three-dimensional binocular magnification [3, 11, 14, 21, 28], motion scaling [11, 28], tremor filtration [3, 11, 21, 28], 7 degrees freedom with wristed articulated movements [3, 11, 14, 21, 28], a shortened learning curve [11, 14, 28], superior surgeon ergonomics [11, 21, 28], and improved instrumental dexterity [11, 21, 28]. This does not mean that there is no more role for endoscopic surgery since the introduction of the da Vinci robot. Although the latter has some clear advantages, comparative studies for endoscopic and robotic-assisted techniques have not been able to illustrate differences in outcome by simple comparison of numbers such as blood loss, conversion rate, or recovery time [11, 21]. In addition, obstacles for popularization of robot-assisted surgery may be the costs of the device and training. In this case, endoscopic surgery has an advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness [30]. Therefore, as mentioned earlier, endoscopic surgery could well be suggested as alternative treatment option to patients who cannot afford costly robotic surgery or in hospitals that do not posses the infrastructure or economic means for placement of a surgical robot [14, 29].
Cervical nodal metastasis is considered one of the most important prognostic factors in head and neck cancer [31]. As there is no consensus on the proper management of the clinically negative neck, establishing an optimal treatment remains challenging [32]. Especially because of its associated morbidity, the role and extent of elective neck dissection is widely debated [33,34,35]. Besides the potential morbidity such as shoulder dysfunction, pain, lymphedema, contour changes, and lower lip paresis [36, 37], the conventional neck dissection always includes a long incision in the neck, leading to unsightly neck scars that cannot be hidden. This is especially problematic in the era of increasing HPV-related tumors in young individuals and the Asian and African population that have a greater propensity to form keloids and hypertrophic scars [38]. With the advent of minimal invasive techniques that offer the ability for mini-incision open, video-assisted, and complete endoscopic procedures, the likelihood of unsatisfactory cosmetic results of the neck is reduced [39]. Initially, the incisions were minimized leading to superior cosmetic results and similar completeness of resection [11, 27, 40, 41]. These minimal incisions have also been described for neck dissection in oral squamous cell carcinoma [22]. Ideally, complete avoidance of neck incisions should be pursued by the use of extracervical remote access approaches [11]. The initially introduced transaxillary approach was successful in lateral neck dissection, but yielded difficulties in exposure and dissection of the upper neck levels that are especially important in treatment of oral cancer [42]. After modifications [43] and preclinical studies [15], a retroauricular approach was suggested. This access has the advantages of being done in an anatomical area that is familiar to head and neck surgeons and overcomes some important drawbacks of the transaxillary approach, such as limitation of the surgical invasiveness by shortening the dissection distance to the target area [44], easier dissection in the superior to inferior direction with independence of the clavicle prominence, and no increased risk of brachial plexus injury [10, 45]. Its concept was originally described for parotidectomy [25, 46] and first reported for robotic thyroidectomy [47]. Subsequently, the group of Lee et al. published a series of patients who successfully underwent a robot-assisted SND of levels I–III and later other series of patients undergoing a robot-assisted SND of levels II–V and removal of benign upper cervical masses through a retroauricular and modified facelift approach [10, 12, 13, 21, 25]. Park et al. noticed that the retroauricular approach provided sufficient working space for the robotic arm without the preauricular incision, making it less invasive and enabling a completely hidden scar [10].
When comparing the robotic and endoscopic-assisted retroauricular approach with the conventional neck dissection, the results of the current study coincide with the results in literature [10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19]. In our sample, there was no significant different perioperative or postoperative complication (e.g., hematoma, seroma, or surgical site infection) related to the approach or surgical technique. In the retroauricular group, there was no conversion to open surgery; no prolonged hospital stay and the important neurovascular structures were preserved in all cases. The incidence of low-grade marginal nerve paresis was considered acceptable when compared to the conventional procedures, as well when compared to the previous published studies [13, 14, 21]. Unfortunately, oncologic effectiveness could not be confirmed due to the small study population and short follow-up, but the number of retrieved lymph nodes as alternative measure was comparable between both groups and similar to the previous publications on classic or retroauricular SND [13, 14, 48, 49]. Although not individually evaluated as outcome variable, the retroauricular approach offered all the advantages already described such as excellent cosmesis with a hidden scar in the postauricular hairline (Fig. 9) [10, 13, 14], no risk of exposed vessels in case of complicated wound healing [10], and benefits in functional aspects such as drainage of lymphedema [10, 14]. Another potential advantage is the more precise and fine dissection granted by da Vinci system during robotic surgery, when compared to the conventional surgery. In our experience, superior cosmetic outcome is the major advantage, followed by reduced edema in neck and face, although we do not have objective analysis on this yet.
Potential disadvantages mentioned by opponents of the retroauricular approach, such as auricular nerve paresthesia [22], auricular deformity [22], and cervical postrhytidectomy contracture [22], were not encountered in the current studied cohort. Proper visualization and dissection of the marginal branch is feasible without any major technical challenge using retroauricular approach. However, skin traction and thermal injury should be considered as potential hazards to this nerve during robotic or endoscopic dissection. The overriding disadvantage of the retroauricular approach remains the prolonged operative time, mainly due to the time-consuming subplatysma flap elevation and working space creation [10, 13, 14, 16, 19]. Although confirmed again in this study, a clear reduction in surgical time from the first to the last case was witnessed. As with any new technology, there is a learning curve and a period of adaptation to overcome. In addition, according to the experience in this cohort, most neck levels (especially level II and III) can be performed under direct visualization from the retroauricular approach. If robotic and endoscopic assistance is only used for completion of dissection in the most difficult accessible areas, operative time might be further decreased.
While the procedure of endoscopic and robotic-assisted SND via a retroauricular approach is still under development, it is important to explore potential refinements of the current procedure and exploit the opportunities created by further technological development. This would include development of smaller instruments and more flexible tools that could facilitate the procedure. But also, incorporation of image guided navigation techniques would be a great advantage to verify the surgical position and provide feedback if adequate tumor resection margins are obtained. With the assistance of Tilepro™ multi-input display software, the Medtronic (Minneapolis, MN, USA) navigational unit can already be interfaced with the da Vinci Si [28]. Another interesting next step could be the use of real-time imaging with intra-operative use of MRI, enabling excellent continuous visualization of soft tissues in areas with limited access [3, 50]. However, this technique is still tremendously time-consuming, associated with high costs and would require further development of non-magnetic surgical tools. In addition, important advances might be achieved in the field of functional rehabilitation, where microvascular transplantation of free grafts has become increasingly important. This is the first comparative study which shows that this approach can also facilitate direct anastomosis. Future advancements can further ameliorate this development, for example by investigating the role of robotic-assisted anastomosis combined with this approach.
Use of minimal invasive techniques for other indications, such as thyroidectomy, has already proven that adequate patient selection and determination of relative contra-indications such as specific tumor characteristics have an important impact on successful outcome [51]. Therefore, large prospective studies need to be designed and executed evaluating clinical and functional outcomes, including long-term recurrence rates, costs, and various quality of life variables, in well-defined cohorts. Once the real value, indications and oncologic safety of this technology have thoroughly been assessed and validated, naturally increased use of this technique is foreseen, as was the case for TORS after FDA approval [24]. Thereby it is very important to keep in mind that for these highly complex and low frequent procedures, better outcomes are expected in high volume centers and surgeons must first have considerable experience with the conventional open techniques before turning to these highly technological complex procedures.
Conclusion
This retrospective study on the initial experience with the retroauricular approach for endoscopic and robotic SND has shown that this approach is feasible, safe, and oncologically efficient when compared to the conventional surgery. It can be used for selected cases with a clear cosmetic benefit. Also departments without access to the technology of the da Vinci surgical robot can obtain similar cosmetic results using the endoscopic procedure. Obviously, further prospective analysis in a larger number of cases is necessary to clarify the advantages, establish a better case selection, and furthermore evaluate costs, functional outcome, patient satisfaction, and learning curve.
References
Dziegielewski PT, Teknos TN, Durmus K et al (2013) Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer: long-term quality of life and functional outcomes. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 139(11):1099–1108
Lee J, Kwon IS, Bae EH, Chung WY (2013) Comparative analysis of oncological outcomes and quality of life after robotic versus conventional open thyroidectomy with modified radical neck dissection in patients with papillary thyroid carcinoma and lateral neck node metastases. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98(7):2701–2708
Goh HK, Ng YH, Teo DT (2010) Minimally invasive surgery for head and neck cancer. Lancet Oncol 11(3):281–286
Weymuller EA, Yueh B, Deleyiannis FW, Kuntz AL, Alsarraf R, Coltrera MD (2000) Quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer: lessons learned from 549 prospectively evaluated patients. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126(3):329–335 (discussion 335–336)
Ozer E, Alvarez B, Kakarala K, Durmus K, Teknos TN, Carrau RL (2013) Clinical outcomes of transoral robotic supraglottic laryngectomy. Head Neck 35(8):1158–1161
Tae K, Ji YB, Song CM, Min HJ, Kim KR, Park CW (2013) Robotic selective neck dissection using a gasless postauricular facelift approach for early head and neck cancer: technical feasibility and safety. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(3):240–245
Shin YS, Choi EC, Kim CH, Koh YW (2014) Robot-assisted selective neck dissection combined with facelift parotidectomy in parotid cancer. Head Neck 36(4):592–595
Sun GH, Peress L, Pynnonen MA (2014) Systematic review and meta-analysis of robotic vs conventional thyroidectomy approaches for thyroid disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 150(4):520–532
Seup Kim B, Kang KH, Park SJ (2015) Robotic modified radical neck dissection by bilateral axillary breast approach for papillary thyroid carcinoma with lateral neck metastasis. Head Neck 37(1):37–45
Park YM, Holsinger FC, Kim WS et al (2013) Robot-assisted selective neck dissection of levels II to V via a modified facelift or retroauricular approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 148(5):778–785
Lee J, Chung WY (2013) Robotic thyroidectomy and neck dissection: past, present, and future. Cancer J 19(2):151–161
Lee HS, Lee D, Koo YC, Shin HA, Koh YW, Choi EC (2013) Endoscopic resection of upper neck masses via retroauricular approach is feasible with excellent cosmetic outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(3):520–527
Lee HS, Kim WS, Hong HJ et al (2012) Robot-assisted Supraomohyoid neck dissection via a modified face-lift or retroauricular approach in early-stage cN0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a comparative study with conventional technique. Ann Surg Oncol 19(12):3871–3878
Byeon HK, Holsinger FC, Koh YW et al (2014) Endoscopic supraomohyoid neck dissection via a retroauricular or modified facelift approach: preliminary results. Head Neck 36(3):425–430
Blanco RG, Ha PK, Califano JA, Fakry C, Richmon J, Saunders JM (2012) Robotic-assisted neck dissection through a pre- and post-auricular hairline incision: preclinical study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(8):791–796
Greer Albergotti W, Kenneth Byrd J, De Almeida JR, Kim S, Duvvuri U (2014) Robot-assisted level II–IV neck dissection through a modified facelift incision: initial North American experience. Int J Med Robot 10(4):391–396
Choi EC, Koh YW (2013) Endoscopic and robotic neck surgery. Joo Sub Song, Seoul
Arribas-Garcia I, Alcala-Galiano A (2014) Facelift approach for neck dissection in squamous cell carcinoma of the lateral border of the tongue: application of this novel aesthetic technique in head and neck oncologic surgery. J Craniofac Surg 25(3):1019–1020
Tae K, Ji YB, Song CM, Jeong JH, Cho SH, Lee SH (2014) Robotic selective neck dissection by a postauricular facelift approach: comparison with conventional neck dissection. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 150(3):394–400
Kim CH, Koh YW, Kim D, Chang JW, Choi EC, Shin YS (2013) Robotic-assisted neck dissection in submandibular gland cancer: preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(8):1450–1457
Lee HS, Kim D, Lee SY et al (2014) Robot-assisted versus endoscopic submandibular gland resection via retroauricular approach: a prospective nonrandomized study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52(2):179–184
Fan S, Liang FY, Chen WL et al (2014) Minimally invasive selective neck dissection: a prospective study of endoscopically assisted dissection via a small submandibular approach in cT1–2N(0) oral squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 21(12):3876–3881
van Loon JW, Smeele LE, Hilgers FJ, van den Brekel MW (2015) Outcome of transoral robotic surgery for stage I–II oropharyngeal cancer. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272(1):175–183
Chen MM, Roman SA, Kraus DH, Sosa JA, Judson BL (2014) Transoral robotic surgery: a population-level analysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 150(6):968–975
Koh YW, Chung WY, Hong HJ et al (2012) Robot-assisted selective neck dissection via modified face-lift approach for early oral tongue cancer: a video demonstration. Ann Surg Oncol 19(4):1334–1335
Kwoh YS, Hou J, Jonckheere EA, Hayati S (1988) A robot with improved absolute positioning accuracy for CT guided stereotactic brain surgery. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 35(2):153–160
Gagner M (1996) Endoscopic subtotal parathyroidectomy in patients with primary hyperparathyroidism. Br J Surg 83(6):875
Blanco RG, Boahene K (2013) Robotic-assisted skull base surgery: preclinical study. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 23(9):776–782
Lira RB, Chulam TC, Koh YW, Choi EC, Kowalski LP (2016) Retroauricular endoscope-assisted approach to the neck: early experience in Latin America. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 20(2):138–144
Yoo H, Chae BJ, Park HS et al (2012) Comparison of surgical outcomes between endoscopic and robotic thyroidectomy. J Surg Oncol 105(7):705–708
Vandenbrouck C, Sancho-Garnier H, Chassagne D, Saravane D, Cachin Y, Micheau C (1980) Elective versus therapeutic radical neck dissection in epidermoid carcinoma of the oral cavity: results of a randomized clinical trial. Cancer 46(2):386–390
Rodrigo JP, Shah JP, Silver CE et al (2011) Management of the clinically negative neck in early-stage head and neck cancers after transoral resection. Head Neck 33(8):1210–1219
Carvalho AL, Kowalski LP, Borges JA, Aguiar S Jr, Magrin J (2000) Ipsilateral neck cancer recurrences after elective supraomohyoid neck dissection. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126(3):410–412
Kowalski LP, Magrin J, Waksman G et al (1993) Supraomohyoid neck dissection in the treatment of head and neck tumors. Survival results in 212 cases. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 119(9):958–963
Brazilian Head and Neck Cancer Study Group (1998) Results of a prospective trial on elective modified radical classical versus supraomohyoid neck dissection in the management of oral squamous carcinoma. Am J Surg 176(5):422–427
Bradley PJ, Ferlito A, Silver CE et al (2011) Neck treatment and shoulder morbidity: still a challenge. Head Neck 33(7):1060–1067
van Wilgen CP, Dijkstra PU, van der Laan BF, Plukker JT, Roodenburg JL (2004) Morbidity of the neck after head and neck cancer therapy. Head Neck 26(9):785–791
Ketchum LD, Cohen IK, Masters FW (1974) Hypertrophic scars and keloids. A collective review. Plast Reconstr Surg 53(2):140–154
Oliveira CM, Nguyen HT, Ferraz AR, Watters K, Rosman B, Rahbar R (2012) Robotic surgery in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery: a review. Minim Invasive Surg 2012:286563
Muenscher A, Dalchow C, Kutta H, Knecht R (2011) The endoscopic approach to the neck: a review of the literature, and overview of the various techniques. Surg Endosc 25(5):1358–1363
Lombardi CP, Raffaelli M, Princi P, De Crea C, Bellantone R (2007) Minimally invasive video-assisted functional lateral neck dissection for metastatic papillary thyroid carcinoma. Am J Surg 193(1):114–118
Kang SW, Lee SH, Ryu HR et al (2010) Initial experience with robot-assisted modified radical neck dissection for the management of thyroid carcinoma with lateral neck node metastasis. Surgery 148(6):1214–1221
Kim WS, Lee HS, Kang SM et al (2012) Feasibility of robot-assisted neck dissections via a transaxillary and retroauricular (“TARA”) approach in head and neck cancer: preliminary results. Ann Surg Oncol 19(3):1009–1017
Brunaud L, Germain A, Zarnegar R, Klein M, Ayav A, Bresler L (2010) Robotic thyroid surgery using a gasless transaxillary approach: cosmetic improvement or improved quality of surgical dissection? J Visc Surg 147(6):e399–e402
Davis SF, Abdel Khalek M, Giles J, Fox C, Lirette L, Kandil E (2011) Detection and prevention of impending brachial plexus injury secondary to arm positioning using ulnar nerve somatosensory evoked potentials during transaxillary approach for thyroid lobectomy. Am J Electroneurodiagnostic Technol 51(4):274–279
Terris DJ, Tuffo KM, Fee WE Jr (1994) Modified facelift incision for parotidectomy. J Laryngol Otol 108(7):574–578
Terris DJ, Singer MC (2012) Robotic facelift thyroidectomy: facilitating remote access surgery. Head Neck 34(5):746–747
Patel SG, Amit M, Yen TC et al (2013) Lymph node density in oral cavity cancer: results of the International Consortium for Outcomes Research. Br J Cancer 109(8):2087–2095
Friedman M, Lim JW, Dickey W et al (1999) Quantification of lymph nodes in selective neck dissection. Laryngoscope 109(3):368–370
Bootz F, Keiner S, Schulz T, Scheffler B, Seifert V (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging–guided biopsies of the petrous apex and petroclival region. Otol Neurotol 22(3):383–388
Dhiman SV, Inabnet WB (2008) Minimally invasive surgery for thyroid diseases and thyroid cancer. J Surg Oncol 97(8):665–668
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Author Renan Bezerra Lira, Author Thiago Celestino Chulam, Author Genival Barbosa de Carvalho, Author Willem Hans Schreuder, Author Yoon Woo Koh, Author Eun Chang Choi, and Author Luiz Paulo Kowalski declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lira, R.B., Chulam, T.C., de Carvalho, G.B. et al. Retroauricular endoscopic and robotic versus conventional neck dissection for oral cancer. J Robotic Surg 12, 117–129 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0706-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-017-0706-0