Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:57:28.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of functional and oncological treatment outcomes after transoral robotic surgery and open surgery for supraglottic laryngeal cancer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2018

B Karabulut ,
İ Deveci ,
M Sürmeli ,
A Şahin-Yilmaz  and
Ç Oysu
B Karabulut*
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, University of Health Sciences, Ümraniye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
İ Deveci
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, University of Health Sciences, Ümraniye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
M Sürmeli
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, University of Health Sciences, Ümraniye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
A Şahin-Yilmaz
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, University of Health Sciences, Ümraniye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
Ç Oysu
Affiliation:
Otolaryngology Department, University of Health Sciences, Ümraniye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Burak Karabulut, Ümraniye Egitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, KBB Hastalıkları Kliniği, Adem Yavuz Cad. No: 1, Ümraniye, Istanbul, Türkiye E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To compare functional and oncological treatment outcomes among patients with supraglottic laryngeal cancers who underwent transoral robotic supraglottic laryngectomy and open supraglottic laryngectomy.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted of 17 patients treated by transoral robotic supraglottic laryngectomy and 20 patients treated by open supraglottic laryngectomy.

Results

No tracheostomy or prolonged intubation was needed in the transoral robotic surgery group. Furthermore, that group had a shorter oral feeding time, hospitalisation and recovery period. There was no difference between groups in terms of complications. There were no differences in overall survival time and disease-specific survival time between groups.

Conclusion

Transoral robotic supraglottic laryngectomy for supraglottic laryngeal cancer is an oncologically safe and functional procedure with better results when compared to conventional open surgery.

Keywords

LaryngectomyRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment Outcome
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 132 , Issue 9 , September 2018 , pp. 832 - 836
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Dr B Karabulut takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

1Tomeh, C, Holsinger, FC. Laryngeal cancer. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2014;22:147–53Google Scholar
2Iqbal, MS, Chaw, C, Kovarik, J, Aslam, S, Jackson, A, Kelly, J et al. Primary concurrent chemoradiation in head and neck cancers with weekly cisplatin chemotherapy: analysis of compliance, toxicity and survival. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2017;21:171–7Google Scholar
3Rivelli, TG, Mak, MP, Martins, RE, da Costa e Silva, VT, de Castro, G Jr. Cisplatin based chemoradiation late toxicities in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients. Discov Med 2015;20:57–66Google Scholar
4Weinstein, GS, O'Malley, BW Jr, Snyder, W, Hockstein, NG. Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2007;116:19–23Google Scholar
5Park, YM, Kim, WS, Byeon, HK, Lee, SY, Kim, SH. Surgical techniques and treatment outcomes of transoral robotic supraglottic partial laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 2013;123:670–7Google Scholar
6Ozer, E, Alvarez, B, Kakarala, K, Durmus, K, Teknos, TN, Carrau, RL. Clinical outcomes of transoral robotic supraglottic laryngectomy. Head Neck 2013;35:1158–61Google Scholar
7Durmus, K, Gokozan, HN, Ozer, E. Transoral robotic supraglottic laryngectomy: surgical considerations. Head Neck 2015;37:125–6Google Scholar
8Park, YM, Lee, WJ, Lee, JG, Lee, WS, Choi, EC, Chung, SM et al. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancer. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 2009;19:361–8Google Scholar
9Alonso, JM. Conservative surgery of cancer of the larynx. Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1947;51:633–42Google Scholar
10Park, YM, Byeon, HK, Chung, HP, Choi, EC, Kim, SH. Comparison of treatment outcomes after transoral robotic surgery and supraglottic partial laryngectomy: our experience with seventeen and seventeen patients respectively. Clin Otolaryngol 2013;38:270–4Google Scholar
11Mendelsohn, AH, Remacle, M. Transoral robotic surgery for laryngeal cancer. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2015;23:148–52Google Scholar
12Kayhan, FT, Kaya, KH, Altintas, A, Sayin, I. Transoral robotic supraglottic partial laryngectomy. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:1422–6Google Scholar
13Razafindranaly, V, Lallemant, B, Aubry, K, Moriniere, S, Vergez, S, Mones, ED et al. Clinical outcomes with transoral robotic surgery for supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma: experience of a French evaluation cooperative subgroup of GETTEC. Head Neck 2016;38:E1097–101Google Scholar
14Mendelsohn, AH, Remacle, M, van der Vorst, S, Bachy, V, Lawson, G. Outcomes following transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 2013;123:208–14Google Scholar