Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Robotic neck dissection is emerging as an alternative to conventional open neck dissection. However, the oncologic safety of robotic elective neck dissection (END) and its indications in early-stage tongue cancer are unclear.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 78 patients who underwent transoral excision for T1, T2 squamous cell carcinoma of tongue with simultaneous ipsilateral END. Patients were assigned to two groups: the robotic group (n = 32)-postauricular face-lift -and the conventional group (n = 46)- transcervical incision. We compared the survival, clinical, pathologic and cosmetic outcomes of the two groups, and evaluated the number of retrieved lymph nodes and robot console time in the robotic group.
RESULTS: The mean age was lower in the robotic group (43.6 ± 12.8 vs. 55.8 ± 14.0, p < 0.001) and the conventional group had more T2 patients (p = 0.01). The mean operation time was significantly longer in the robotic group than the conventional group (178.81 ± 33.9 vs. 92.28 ± 16.7, p < 0.001). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was not significantly different between the two groups (19.22 ± 8.51 vs. 20.7 ± 11.4, p = 0.41). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was not significantly different between the two groups (93.6 % vs. 82.9 %, p = 0.59). Overall scar satisfaction assessed by VAS score, the robotic group showed significantly better results compared to the conventional group (8.38 vs. 5.86, p = 0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic END by a postauricular facelift approach is a feasible and safe approach for early-stage tongue cancer.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 78 patients who underwent transoral excision for T1, T2 squamous cell carcinoma of tongue with simultaneous ipsilateral END. Patients were assigned to two groups: the robotic group (n = 32)-postauricular face-lift -and the conventional group (n = 46)- transcervical incision. We compared the survival, clinical, pathologic and cosmetic outcomes of the two groups, and evaluated the number of retrieved lymph nodes and robot console time in the robotic group.
RESULTS: The mean age was lower in the robotic group (43.6 ± 12.8 vs. 55.8 ± 14.0, p < 0.001) and the conventional group had more T2 patients (p = 0.01). The mean operation time was significantly longer in the robotic group than the conventional group (178.81 ± 33.9 vs. 92.28 ± 16.7, p < 0.001). The mean number of retrieved lymph nodes was not significantly different between the two groups (19.22 ± 8.51 vs. 20.7 ± 11.4, p = 0.41). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was not significantly different between the two groups (93.6 % vs. 82.9 %, p = 0.59). Overall scar satisfaction assessed by VAS score, the robotic group showed significantly better results compared to the conventional group (8.38 vs. 5.86, p = 0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: Robotic END by a postauricular facelift approach is a feasible and safe approach for early-stage tongue cancer.
摘要：
背景：机器人颈淋巴结清扫术正在成为传统开放式颈淋巴结清扫术的替代方法。然而,机器人选择性颈清扫术(END)的肿瘤学安全性及其在早期舌癌中的适应症尚不清楚.
方法：我们回顾性分析了78例T1，T2舌鳞状细胞癌同时同侧END的经口切除术患者的资料。患者被分为两组：机器人组（n=32）-耳后整容-和常规组（n=46）-经颈切口。我们比较了生存，临床,两组的病理和美容结果，并评估了机器人组中检索到的淋巴结数量和机器人控制台时间。
结果：机器人组的平均年龄较低（43.6±12.8vs.55.8±14.0，p<0.001），常规组T2患者更多（p=0.01）。机器人组的平均手术时间明显长于常规组（178.81±33.9vs.92.28±16.7，p<0.001）。两组之间检索到的淋巴结的平均数量没有显着差异（19.22±8.51与20.7±11.4，p=0.41）。两组的5年无病生存率没有显着差异（93.6％vs.82.9%,p=0.59）。通过VAS评分评估总体瘢痕满意度，与传统组相比，机器人组显示出明显更好的结果(8.38vs.5.86,p=0.033)。
结论：对于早期舌癌，通过耳后整容的机器人END方法是一种可行且安全的方法。
方法：我们回顾性分析了78例T1，T2舌鳞状细胞癌同时同侧END的经口切除术患者的资料。患者被分为两组：机器人组（n=32）-耳后整容-和常规组（n=46）-经颈切口。我们比较了生存，临床,两组的病理和美容结果，并评估了机器人组中检索到的淋巴结数量和机器人控制台时间。
结果：机器人组的平均年龄较低（43.6±12.8vs.55.8±14.0，p<0.001），常规组T2患者更多（p=0.01）。机器人组的平均手术时间明显长于常规组（178.81±33.9vs.92.28±16.7，p<0.001）。两组之间检索到的淋巴结的平均数量没有显着差异（19.22±8.51与20.7±11.4，p=0.41）。两组的5年无病生存率没有显着差异（93.6％vs.82.9%,p=0.59）。通过VAS评分评估总体瘢痕满意度，与传统组相比，机器人组显示出明显更好的结果(8.38vs.5.86,p=0.033)。
结论：对于早期舌癌，通过耳后整容的机器人END方法是一种可行且安全的方法。
