Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Head Neck. 2024 Jun;46(6):1331-1339. doi: 10.1002/hed.27731. Epub 2024 Mar 15.
Robot-assisted neck dissection (RAND) for the management of the regional lymphatic basin offers the potential for improved cosmesis and reduced lymphedema. While RAND has been previously described, functional outcome and oncologic control rates need further elucidation.
A retrospective, matched cohort study of neck dissections completed at UPMC from 2017 to 2021 was conducted. RAND was identified and matched to open neck dissections (open) in a 1:2 ratio. Matching characteristics included primary cancer site, pre-operative clinical N-stage, age at time of surgery, HPV status, and previous chemoradiation treatment (salvage vs. nonsalvage procedure). Additional information was collected on patient demographics, surgery characteristics, and outcomes. Comparisons were made using t-test, chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and Kaplan-Meier Wilcoxon (KMW) test with p < 0.05 indicating significance.
Overall, RAND and open groups had similar distributions of age, gender, BMI, primary site of cancer, HPV status, clinical N-stage, clinical T-stage, known neck disease prior to procedure, prior chemoradiation therapy, and level(s) of neck dissection. Surgically, RAND procedures yielded less drainage on average (124 mL in RAND vs. 220 mL in open approaches; p = 0.01). There was no difference in the rates of complications, estimated blood loss, or number of lymph nodes obtained. There were also no differences in the rates of adjuvant therapy. Long term, there were no differences in the rates of local, locoregional, and distant recurrence of primary disease between RAND and open procedures. There were also no differences in postprocedure disease-free survival time (KMW p-value = 0.32; HR [of RAND compared with open] = 0.62). Similarly, there were no statistical differences in the overall survival of RAND patients when compared with the open group (75 vs. 58.9 months; HR = 0.11, p = 0.87).
This study is the first to report the long-term effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery compared with the traditional, open approach. In addition to well-known cosmetic benefits, robot-assisted surgery may also offer patients a reduction in uncomfortable drains and improved effects from lymphedema. Overall, this study provides initial data that the RAND may be considered as an alternative approach to open surgery.
机器人辅助颈部清扫术(RAND)在管理区域性淋巴盆地方面具有改善美容效果和减少淋巴水肿的潜力。虽然之前已经描述过 RAND,但功能结果和肿瘤控制率需要进一步阐明。
这是一项回顾性、配对队列研究,对 2017 年至 2021 年期间在 UPMC 完成的颈部清扫术进行了分析。确定了 RAND,并以 1:2 的比例与开放式颈部清扫术(开放式)相匹配。匹配特征包括原发癌部位、术前临床 N 期、手术时的年龄、HPV 状态和先前的放化疗治疗(挽救性与非挽救性手术)。还收集了有关患者人口统计学、手术特征和结果的其他信息。使用 t 检验、卡方检验、Fisher 确切检验和 Kaplan-Meier Wilcoxon(KMW)检验进行比较,p 值<0.05 表示具有统计学意义。
总体而言,RAND 和开放式组在年龄、性别、BMI、癌症原发部位、HPV 状态、临床 N 期、临床 T 期、手术前颈部疾病、先前的放化疗治疗以及颈部清扫术的水平方面分布相似。手术方面,RAND 手术的平均引流量较少(RAND 组为 124 毫升,开放式组为 220 毫升;p=0.01)。并发症、估计失血量或获得的淋巴结数量没有差异。辅助治疗的比率也没有差异。长期来看,RAND 和开放式手术在原发性疾病的局部、局部区域和远处复发率方面没有差异。手术后无疾病生存时间也没有差异(KMW p 值=0.32;RAND 与开放式相比的 HR [风险比] =0.62)。同样,与开放式组相比,RAND 患者的总生存率也没有统计学差异(75 与 58.9 个月;HR=0.11,p=0.87)。
这是第一项报告机器人辅助手术与传统开放式手术相比的长期效果的研究。除了众所周知的美容益处外,机器人辅助手术还可能为患者减少不适的引流管并改善淋巴水肿的效果。总的来说,这项研究提供了初步数据,表明 RAND 可以作为开放式手术的替代方法。