Transoral robotic surgery of the parapharyngeal space: A case series and systematic review

Jason Y.K. Chan, Raymond K. Tsang, David W. Eisele, Jeremy D. Richmon

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in the treatment of para-pharyngeal space (PPS) neoplasms through a case series and systematic analysis. Methods. A case series review of 4 patients was combined with a PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus search that identified 82 reports. Fifty-three articles remained after screening for duplicates, finally, 8 reports with adequate patient data were included. Statistical analyses and graphical representations were performed with Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA) and GraphPad Prism software (La Jolla, CA). Results. Forty-four patients had TORS resection of PPS neoplasms. Overall, mean length of stay was 3.0 days with mean time to oral diet of 1.0 day. There were no recurrences but there was a mean follow-up time of only 18.5 months. Twenty-nine of these neoplasms (65.9%) were pleomorphic adenomas of which 7 (24%) had unintended capsule violation or tumor fragmentation during surgery and 2 patients had pha-ryngeal dehiscence that was managed conservatively. There were no neurovascular complications. Conclusion. TORS is a viable approach to resection of neoplasms of the PPS with minimal surgical morbidity. However, further long-term evaluation, especially for pleomorphic adenomas, is needed to define patient selection and the role of TORS for PPS salivary gland neoplasms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)293-298
Number of pages6
JournalHead and Neck
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2015

Keywords

  • Parapharyngeal space
  • Pleomorphic adenoma
  • Transoral
  • Transoral robotic surgery (TORS)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Transoral robotic surgery of the parapharyngeal space: A case series and systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this