Advertisement

Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: healing by secondary intention, local flap or free flap

  • Rossella SgarzaniEmail author
  • Giuseppe Meccariello
  • Filippo Montevecchi
  • Manlio Gessaroli
  • Davide Melandri
  • Claudio Vicini
Original Paper
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The goal of any oncological therapy should be to achieve long-term disease-free survival while minimising acute and late toxicities. One of the goals of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) resection is to obtain negative margins around the primary tumour with minimal functional morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the functional morbidity of TORS and evaluate the post-operative pain and functional outcomes 6 months after TORS for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in reconstructed and non-reconstructed patients.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 64 patients with head and neck SCCs resected by TORS from 2008 to December 2017 in our institution. The tumour localisation, pathologic T classification, defect size, reconstructive method, wound healing time, complications, post-operative pain and functional outcomes at 6 months were statistically evaluated (Table 1).

Results

Fifty-four resections healed by secondary intention, and 4 patients were reconstructed with a local flap and 6 with a free flap. No flap loss was encountered, while two cases of flap dehiscence that needed surgical revision and one case of partial necrosis were recorded. Eight patients had post-operative oral bleeding from the primary tumour resection field with an average bleeding time of 6.2 days. All bleeding occurred in patients with secondary healing of the defect after tumour excision, while no oral bleeding was recorded in patients with flap reconstructions. The pain scores in the first 3 post-operative days were 8 ± 1.2 for the secondary healing wounds and 6.2 ± 1.5 for the flap reconstructions. From day 4 to day 10, the mean VAS score was 5.7 ± 1.2 for the secondary healing wounds and 5.5 ± 1.2 for the flap reconstructions. The average wound healing time was 21.3 days in the secondary healing wound patients and 14.5 days in the reconstructed patients. At the 6-month follow-up, 63 out of the 64 patients recovered oral feeding and comprehensive locution, and only one patient experienced severe post-operative dysphagia and needed a permanent tracheostomy tube and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding.

Conclusion

In this retrospective study, the functional morbidity and complications of TORS for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma resection were favourable in reconstructed and non-reconstructed patients.

Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Transoral robotic surgery Reconstruction Local flap Free flap Squamous cell carcinoma Head and neck 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Rossella Sgarzani, Giuseppe Meccariello, Filippo Montevecchi, Manlio Gessaroli, Davide Melandri and Claudio Vicini declare that they have no conflict of interest.

All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ward MC, Koyfman SA (2016) Transoral robotic surgery: the radiation oncologist’s perspective. Oral Oncol 60:96–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FDA 510(k) summary; 2009; http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf9/K090993.pdf [accessed November 18, 2015]
  3. 3.
    Meccariello G, Cammaroto G, Ofo E, Calpona S, Parisi E, D'Agostino G, Gobbi R, Firinu E, Bellini C, de Vito A, Montevecchi F, Costantini M, Amadori E, Nuzzo S, Pelucchi S, Vicini C (2019) The emerging role of trans-oral robotic surgery for the detection of the primary tumour site in patients with head-neck unknown primary cancers: a meta-analysis. Auris Nasus Larynx 46(5):663–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Caliceti U, Piccin O, Sgarzani R, Negosanti L, Fernandez IJ, Nebiaj A, Contedini F, Cipriani R, Ceroni AR (2013) Surgical strategies based on standard templates for microsurgical reconstruction of oral cavity and oropharynx soft tissue: a 20 years’ experience. Microsurgery. 33(2):90–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vicini C, Montevecchi F, D’Agostino G, DE Vito A, Meccariello G (2015) A novel approach emphasising intra-operative superficial margin enhancement of head-neck tumours with narrow-band imaging in transoral robotic surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 35(3):157–161PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Vito A, Meccariello G, Vicini C (2017) Narrow band imaging as screening test for early detection of laryngeal cancer: a prospective study. Clin Otolaryngol 42(2):347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Almeida JR, Park RCW, Villanueva NL, Miles BA, Teng MS, Genden EM (2014) Reconstructive algorithm and classification system for transoral oropharyngeal defects. Head Neck 36:934–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moore EJ, Van Abel KM, Price DL, Lohse CM, Olsen KD, Jackson RS, Martin EJ (2018) Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal carcinoma: surgical margins and oncologic outcomes. Head Neck.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yeh DH, Tam S, Fung K, MacNeil SD, Yoo J, Winquist E, Palma DA, Nichols AC (2015) Transoral robotic surgery vs. radiotherapy for management of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma—a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Surg Oncol 41(12):1603–1614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meccariello G, Montevecchi F, D’Agostino G et al (2019) Trans-oral robotic surgery for the management of oropharyngeal carcinomas: a 9-year institutional experience. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 39(2):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meccariello G, Montevecchi F, Sgarzani R, Vicini C (2018) Defect-oriented reconstruction after transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer: a case series and review of the literature. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 38(6):569–574PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meccariello G, Montevecchi F, Sgarzani R, De Vito A, D’Agostino G, Gobbi R, Bellini C, Vicini C (2017) The reconstructive options for oropharyngeal defects in the transoral robotic surgery framework. Oral Oncol 66:108–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hatten KM, Brody RM, Weinstein GS, Newman JG, Bur AM, Chalian AA, O’Malley BW Jr, Rassekh CH, Cannady SB (2018) Defining the role of free flaps for transoral robotic surgery. Ann Plast Surg 80(1):45–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leonhardt FD, Quon H, Abrahao M, O’Malley BW, Weinstein GS (2012) Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal carcinoma and its impact on patient-reported quality of life and function. Head Neck 34(2):146–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee SY, Park YM, Byeon HK, Choi EC, Kim S-H (2014) Comparison of oncologic and functional outcomes after transoral robotic lateral oropharyngectomy versus conventional surgery for T1 to T3 tonsillar cancer. Head Neck 36(8):1138–1145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dziegielewski PT, Teknos TN, Durmus K et al (2013) Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg 139(11):1099CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moore EJ, Olsen KD, Kasperbauer JL (2009) Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of feasibility and functional outcomes. Laryngoscope 119:2156–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Achim V, Bolognone RK, Palmer AD, Graville DJ, Light TJ, Li R, Gross N, Andersen PE, Clayburgh D (2017) Long-term functional and quality-of-life outcomes after transoral robotic surgery in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1790
  19. 19.
    Sethia R, Yumusakhuylu AC, Ozbay I, Diavolitsis V, Brown NV, Zhao S, Wei L, Old M, Agrawal A, Teknos TN, Ozer E (2018) Quality of life outcomes of transoral robotic surgery with or without adjuvant therapy for oropharyngeal cancer. Laryngoscope 128(2):403–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moore EJ, Olsen SM, Laborde RR, García JJ, Walsh FJ, Price DL, Janus JR, Kasperbauer JL, Olsen KD (2012) Long-term functional and oncologic results of transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Mayo Clin Proc 87(3):219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chia SH, Gross ND, Richmon JD (2013) Surgeon experience and complications with transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 149(6):885–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Burn Unit, Maurizio Bufalini HospitalAusl RomagnaCesenaItaly
  2. 2.ENT Department, Morgagni Pierantoni HospitalAusl RomagnaForlìItaly
  3. 3.Maxillofacial Unit, Maurizio Bufalini HospitalAusl RomagnaCesenaItaly

Personalised recommendations