Open Access

Transoral robotic surgery with radial forearm free flap reconstruction: case control analysis

  • Vincent L. Biron1, 2Email author,
  • Daniel A. O’Connell1, 2,
  • Brittany Barber1,
  • Jessica M. Clark1,
  • Colin Andrews3,
  • Caroline C. Jeffery1,
  • David W. J. Côté1,
  • Jeffrey Harris1, 2 and
  • Hadi Seikaly1, 2
Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery201746:20

DOI: 10.1186/s40463-017-0196-0

Received: 26 October 2016

Accepted: 7 March 2017

Published: 14 March 2017

Abstract

Background

The resection of large oropharyngeal tumors traditionally involves a lip-splitting mandibulotomy for adequate margin visualization and free flap reconstruction of the surgical defect. Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) has emerged as a technique that can resect large and complex oropharyngeal tumors, avoiding a lip-splitting approach. The aim of this study is to compare the lip-splitting mandibulotomy approach versus TORS for the management of advanced stage oropharyngeal carcinomas.

Methods

Prospectively collected data from 18 patients with advanced stage oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) who received TORS with radial forearm free flap reconstruction (RFFF) was compared to a matched cohort of 39 patients who received a lip-splitting mandibulotomy and RFFF. Patients were matched for stage, p16 positivity, smoking, age and gender. Length of hospital stay (LOHS), tracheostomy decanulation time, operative time, surgical margin status, and post-operative complications were compared between groups.

Results

Patients who received TORS with RFFF had a significantly lower mean LOHS, compared to patients who were treated by lip-splitting mandibulotomy and RFFF (14.4 vs 19.7 days, p = 0.03). No significant differences were seen between groups in terms of operative time, tracheostomy decannulation time, margin positivity and post-operative complications.

Conclusion

TORS with radial forearm free flap reconstruction is a safe, effective and cost-saving alternative to the lip-splitting mandibulotomy approach for the treatment of advanced stage OPSCC.

Keywords

Oropharyngeal cancer Transoral robotic surgery Mandibulotomy Radial forearm free flap Human papillomavirus

Background

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is caused by tobacco smoking, alcohol and oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV). Over the past decade, the incidence of HPV-related OPSCC has been rising worldwide [17]. When compared to non-HPV related OPSCC, HPV-OPSCC is molecularly distinct and patients with these tumors have improved survival outcomes regardless of treatment modality [820].

The treatment of advanced stage OPSCC has been a subject of controversy in recent years, as comparable survival outcomes can be achieved with either chemoradiation or primary surgery for HPV-positive tumors. The increasing use of transoral robotic surgery (TORS) since its FDA approval in 2009 has paralleled a paradigm shift towards primary surgical treatment of OPSCC [9, 2125]. Several reports have shown favorable oncologic outcomes with TORS, while minimizing morbidity and disfigurement associated with mandibulotomy approaches [2628]. In comparison to chemoradiation, treatment of OPSCC patients with TORS has also been shown to result in better functional outcomes and decreased cost [21, 22, 2931].

TORS has proven efficacy in the resection of small primary (T1 and T2) oropharyngeal tumors, however, with increasing use, the applications of this tool has expanded. Recent reports from several independent centers have described the use of TORS for the resection of more advanced oropharyngeal cancers, those requiring free flap reconstruction [3240], in cases traditionally approached by lip-splitting mandibulotomy. TORS with free flap reconstruction (TORS-FF) is thought to be a safe and less invasive alternative to the mandibulotomy approach. However, the literature describing TORS-FF is limited to case reports and small case series with no comparative group.

The goal of this study was to compare TORS to the lip-splitting mandibulotomy approach in the primary surgical treatment of advanced stage OPSCC in patients with planned free flap reconstruction.

Methods

Patient data

All OPSCC patients who received TORS and radial forearm free flap reconstruction (RFFF) from May 2015-July 2016 or lip-splitting mandibulotomy with RFFF from January 2006-July 2016 at the University of Alberta were included in the study. Patient demographics were obtained from prospectively collected databases through the Alberta Cancer Registry, with details verified in paper charts and electronic medical records. Smoking status was defined as having a greater than 10 pack year tobacco smoking history [11]. P16 status was obtained though standard pathology for TORS patients and from tissues microarray data previously reported for mandibulotomy patients [9]. Operative time was obtained from standardized nursing and anesthesia records, calculated from induction of general anesthesia to surgical case completion. Surgical margin status was obtained from final post-operative pathology. Length of hospital stay was calculated from the start of surgical procedure to date of discharge based on standardized discharge criteria according to head and neck care protocols [41].

Transoral robotic surgery

All patients received a prophylactic tracheostomy for airway safety [32, 33, 35, 38, 42] as well as a nasogastric tube placement. TORS was performed using the da Vinci S Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) at the beginning of the procedure with the exception of three patients who had ipsilateral N3 nodal disease. In N3 patients, the neck dissection was completed for safe exposure of the carotid artery, followed by TORS of the primary tumor. Oropharyngeal exposure was obtained using Crowe-Davis or Feyh-Kastenbauer mouth retractor and visualized with a 0- or 30- degree endoscope. TORS resection was performed using monopolar cautery and a Maryland dissector. Intraoperative frozen sections were taken from the ablative defect.

Free flap reconstruction of TORS defect

Once the size of the oropharyngeal defect was known an appropriate sized free flap was elevated in the standard fashion. The radial forearm free flap was used for its versatility in reconstructing of multiple defects of the oropharynx including fasciocutaneous re-lining, soft palate repair as well as beaver-tail modifications for functional base of tongue reconstruction [4346]. An analysis of the tumor extirpation defect was done based on subsite(s) resected, including percent resected of the soft palate, lateral pharyngeal wall/tonsil and base of tongue. If > 50% of the soft palate was resected functional soft palate reconstruction was initiated [45], and if > 50% of the base of tongue is resected a beavertail modified free flap was utilized [44]. Two patients had >50% of total tongue base resected and 1 patient had > 50% of soft palate resected. These oropharyngeal reconstructive techniques are comprehensively described elsewhere [46].

Trans-cervical and pharyngeal accesses were used for inferior repair of the pharynx and inset of the free flap. The ipsilateral suprahyoid muscles and nerves were preserved whenever possible but the ipsilateral hypoglossal and lingual nerves can be transected to provide wider access. The lingual nerve was transected and re-anastomosed following inset in 3 patients. These nerves should be reconstructed primarily or cable grafted, to limited the impact on post-operative speech and swallowing function [47].

The inferior portion of the flap was inset initially transcervically, though the lateral pharyngotomy The remainder of the flap was then inset via the oral cavity through a transoral approach. The robot was not used to inset any portion of the flap. Microvascular anastomosis to recipient vessels in the neck were performed after the inset of the flap was complete.

Cost comparison

Surgical instrument costs were determined from nursing case logs for instrument use standard to TORS vs mandibulotomy approaches for oropharyngeal cancer resections. Physician billing costs were estimated from standard surgeon and anesthesia billings according to the Alberta Health Services Schedule of Medical Benefits (http://www.health.alberta.ca/professionals/SOMB.html). Hospital stay cost estimates were obtained from Alberta Health Services cost estimates (http://obrieniph.ucalgary.ca/health-econ/research-reports).

Data analysis

Patients who received a lip-splitting mandibulotomy and RFFF were systematically matched to patients who received TORS with RFFF. Patients were fist matched by exact T stage and p16 status, followed by closest matching possible for smoking status, age, gender and nodal stage. Statistical comparisons of group variables were performed in SPSS version 22 (Chicago, IL, USA) using Chi-Square or Mann Whitney U tests where appropriate.

Results

Patient characteristics

From May 2015 to July 2016, 38 patients received TORS at the University of Alberta, of which 18 received a radial forearm free flap (RFFF) reconstruction and were included in this study. These patients were compared to a historical cohort of 76 OPSCC patients who were treated with primary surgery using a lip-splitting mandibulotomy approach and RFFF (Fig. 1). Patients met criteria for free flap reconstruction of TORS defects if they had one or more of the following adverse features as previously described [37]. 1) >50% palate defect, 2) pharyngo-cervical communication and/or 3) exposed pharyngeal internal carotid artery. All patients in the TORS or mandibulotomy cohorts met the above criteria (all class III/IV) and therefore met indications for free flap reconstruction.
Fig. 1

Summary of oropharyngeal cancer patients selected for inclusion in this study

Twenty-nine patients who received a mandibulotomy were identically matched to the TORS patients for p16 positivity, smoking and T-stage, and closely matched for age (+/-10 years), sex, tumor subsite and nodal status (Fig. 1 and Table 1). In comparing matched patients who received TORS + RFFF vs mandibulotomy + RFFF, there were no statistically significant differences between these groups with regard to age, sex, p16 positivity, primary tumor subsite, T-stage and N-stage (Table 1).
Table 1

Matched demographic, exposure and tumor characteristics of patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma in this study

Variable

TORS (n = 18)

Mandibulotomy (n = 29)

P

 Age, years

59.6

57.6

0.69

 Sex, % M

66.7

80.7

0.31

Smoking status (%)

10 (55.5)

17 (58.6)

0.67

P16 positivity (%)

16 (88.9)

25 (93.1)

0.61

Tumor subsite (%)

Tonsil

13 (72.2)

16 (55.2)

0.36

Base of Tongue

5 (27.8)

13 (44.8)

Pathologic stage (%)

T1

5 (27.8)

7 (26.9)

0.96

T2

10 (55.5)

17 (58.6)

 

T3

3 (16.7)

5 (19.2)

 

N0

1 (5.6)

1 (3.8)

 

N1

1 (5.6)

3 (11.5)

0.68

N2

13 (72.2)

23 (79.3.)

 

N3

3 (16.7)

2 (7.7)

 

Operative outcomes

No TORS cases were converted to open, lip-splitting mandibulotomy. Negative intra-operative frozen sections were obtained for all patients treated with TORS-FF. Two (6.9%) patients treated with a lip-splitting approach had positive margins reported on post-operative pathology. The operative time was similar for patients treated with a TORS (15.0 h) vs mandibulotomy (15.5 h) approach (Table 2).
Table 2

Outcomes of oropharyngeal cancer patients treated with TORS vs mandibulotomy and radial forearm free flap reconstruction

Outcome

TORS

Mandibulotomy

P

Operative time

15.0

15.5

0.77

LOHS (days)

14.4

19.7

0.03

Positive margins (%)

0

6.9

0.52

ICU stay (days)

1.9

2.0

0.76

Decannulation (days)

7.5

9.1

0.97

G-tube 1 month (%)a

16.6

13.7

0.68

G-tube 12 months (%)b

5.5

13.7

0.50

ICU intensive care unit; LOHS length of hospital stay

aG-tube dependency and readmissions to hospital reported for up to 30 days post-discharge

b1 year g-tube rates not available for all given the study end date (July 2016) but is available to all patients who did receive a g-tube

Post-operative outcomes

Patients treated with TORS had a significantly shorter length of hospital stay compared to mandibulotomy patients (14.4 vs 19.7 days, p = 0.03). No significant differences were seen between these groups in terms of post-operative intensive care unit stay, time to decannulation or gastrostomy tube dependency (Table 2).

Adverse events

Although valid statistical comparisons cannot be made between groups, patients treated with TORS experienced fewer complications overall (Table 3). Patients had comparable numbers of post-operative hematoma, abscess, chyle leak and blood loss requiring post-operative packed red blood cell transfusion. In the mandibulotomy group however, three patients experienced airway obstruction post-tracheostomy decannulation (requiring re-cannulation), which did not occur in TORS patients. There were no free flap failures in either group. No intraoperative or perioperative fatalities occurred.
Table 3

Adverse events in patients receiving TORS vs mandibulotomy and radial forearm free flap reconstruction

Event

TORS

Mandibulotomy

Hematoma

1

1

Abscess

2

3

Chyle leak

1

1

Blood transfusiona

3

5

Airway obstructionb

0

3

Pulmonary embolism

0

1

Stroke

0

1

Fistula

0

0

TOTAL

7

15

No significant differences were seen between groups

aBlood transfusions were measured as either intra-operative or post-operatively up to the point of discharge from hospital

bAirway obstruction post-tracheostomy decannulation requiring further intervention

Cost comparison

Comparison of cost estimates for TORS vs mandibulotomy approaches showed reduced cost of surgical instruments, physician billings and hospital stay associated with TORS (Table 4). Overall, the TORS approach is estimated to result in a cost reduction of $ 6409.98 per case.
Table 4

Cost comparison of TORS vs mandibulotomy and radial forearm free flap reconstruction

Items

TORS

Mandibulotomy

Surgical instrumentsa

 Robotic arms (x2)

$ 1109.72

-

 Robotic drapes

$ 469.67

-

 Plates and screws

-

$ 1072.58

 Saw blades and tubing

-

$ 693.53

Physician billingsb

$ 181.19

$ 235.25

Surgical ward stay (mean)

$ 16,761.6

$ 22,930.8

Totals

$ 18, 522.18

$ 24,932.16

Cost shown per case in Canadian dollars. Operating time and intensive care unit stays were not statistically different between both groups and is not shown in the analysis

aOnly surgical items that are different between both cases are included. Cost of non-disposable items such as the Da Vinci robotic system (purchased prior to the study for non-head and neck robotic surgery) and drills/saws are not included

bIncludes only billings that are different between both cases, for anesthesia and surgeon codes as per the 2014–2016 Alberta Health Services Schedule of Medical Benefits

Discussion

TORS has been mainly used for the resection of small (T1 or T2) OPSCCs with the resulting defect left to heal secondarily or by primary closure. Recently, a number of reports have described the use of TORS for the resection of larger tumors, traditionally approached by lip-splitting mandibulotomy followed with free flap reconstruction [3240]. To date, this study reports outcomes on the largest cohort of OPSCC patients treated with TORS and free flap reconstruction and provides the best available evidence for this approach.

TORS with free flap reconstruction is a recent surgical advancement with literature describing this procedure limited to case reports and small case series ranging from one to eleven patients [3240, 42]. The most common post-TORS free flap reported in the literature is the radial forearm (N = 37), followed by anterolateral thigh (N = 5) and vastus lateralis (N = 1). The radial forearm free flap is generally the first option for oropharyngeal reconstruction [44, 45, 4852] unless it is contraindicated. Given the pliability of this flap, it is an excellent option for reconstruction of TORS oropharyngeal defects, whereby insetting is challenging with more limited access.

The overall surgical time of this approach was comparable to matched mandibulotomy cases (15.0 vs 15.5 h, p = 0.77) even though TORS resection of the primary tumor may result in a more challenging free flap inset. TORS-FF operative time reported in this study was also similar to data in the literature, ranging from 12.25 to 17.5 h [38, 40]. In our experience, additional time is required for TORS set-up and free flap insetting is counter balanced by avoiding a mandibulotomy and plate reconstruction.

Traditionally a lip-splitting mandibulotomy was required for oncologic resection of oropharyngeal tumors followed by free tissue reconstruction in most cases. This time proven approach provides safe and effective surgical access, but is associated with delayed recovery of oral function and obvious facial scarring [34, 53]. TORS offers the advantage of superb visualization as demonstrated by the reduced positive margin rate and precise instrumentation to perform large oropharyngeal resections in a less invasive and cosmetically superior fashion. In our case-matched cohort, patients who received TORS-FF were discharged from hospital an average of 5.3 days earlier than patients who were treated with mandibulotomy. Reasons for decreased LOHS in TORS patients could not be unequivocally ascertained but these data are consistent with the literature [33]. We hypothesize that TORS-FF patients meet discharge criteria earlier due to a number of factors such as edema, pain control and swallowing but this requires additional investigation. This reduction in LOHS may also result in significant health care cost savings.

Recent studies suggest TORS may provide superior swallowing outcomes for patients with OPSCC. A review of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample reported a significant decrease in g-tube rates (0% vs 19%) in OPSCC patients treated with TORS vs other surgical approaches [30]. Sharma et al. reported lower g-tube rates in OPSCC patients treated with TORS vs a T-stage matched cohort treated with chemoradiotherapy [31]. In case series of patients receiving TORS-FF for OPSCC, one group reported 44% (4/9) of patients to be g-tube dependent at 1 year [32], while another group reported only 9% (1/11) patients temporarily required a g-tube [37]. Our TORF-FF patients had comparable rates of g-tube dependency (16.6%) to patients who received a mandibulotomy. We are performing further follow-up assessments of function in a larger group of patients receiving TORS-FF to evaluate the effects of surgery on swallowing.

A number of studies have demonstrated lower positive margin resection rates with TORS vs other surgical approaches, which potentially translates into improved local disease control [21, 22, 26, 27] and de-intensification of adjunctive treatment. Two large multi-institutional studies (N = 177 and N = 410) estimated positive margins rates from TORS to be 4.3 to 9.9% with close margins (1–5 mm) in 21.0% of patients receiving TORS [26, 27]. Our study demonstrated low rates of positive margins in TORS-FF (0%) and mandibulotomy patients (6.9%). Our TORS approach aims to take ≥1 cm margins, which can be performed safely in the setting of planned free flap reconstruction. Although long-term follow-up would be required to verify the oncologic outcomes associated with the TORS-FF, this data suggests at least equivalent local disease control can be achieved with this approach.

A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting results from this study. Bias between comparative groups was minimized using a case-control study design, however, data from the lip-splitting mandibulotomy cohort was obtained retrospectively. Cost comparisons are based on Alberta Health Services mean costing data and only includes estimated costs associated with the surgical procedues and hospital stay. Additional costs such as patient/caregiver travel, parking, childcare and loss of employment could not be accurately calculated in this study and are therefore not included. Some confounders may have influenced the LOHS between groups, given the implementation of head and neck post-operative care pathways in 2015. As the majority of mandibulotomy patients being compared received post-operative care prior to 2015, the LOHS in this group could be lower. In the mandibulotomy patients who were treated within the formally implemented care pathway the mean LOHS was 16 days, still higher than TORS patients. In addition, this study was performed in a single centre with a high-volume experience in head and neck oncologic and surgery and reconstruction. Further prospective and multi-centre studies are suggested to validate our findings.

Conclusion

TORS with radial forearm free flap reconstruction is a safe, effective and potentially cost-saving alternative to the lip-splitting mandibulotomy approach for the treatment of advanced stage OPSCC.

Abbreviations

ALT: 

Anterolateral thigh

FF: 

Free flap

HPV: 

Human papillomavirus

ICU: 

Intensive care unit

LOHS: 

Length of hospital stay

OPSCC: 

Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

RFFF: 

Radial forearm free flap

TORS: 

Transoral robotic surgery

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to thanks Mrs. Stacey Breau and Mr. Chris Cornell for their assistance with obtaining surgical operating time data and surgical costing data.

Funding

Funding for this study was obtained from University of Alberta Hospital Foundation Manuary Head and Neck Fundraising Campaign (2014-2015) and the Alberta Head and Neck Centre for Oncology and Reconstruction Foundation.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the Alberta Cancer Registry but restrictions apply to the availability of these data including health ethics approval obtained for the current study, and so are not publicly available.

Authors’ contributions

VLB was involved in all aspects of experimental design, data collection, data analysis and the primary contributor in manuscript preparation. BB, JC, JY and CA participated in data collection. DWC, DOC, KA, JH and HS were involved in data collection and manuscript preparation. CCJ and BB provided assistance with cost comparison analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of Alberta Health Ethics Research Board protocol (Pro00053918).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Alberta
(2)
Alberta Head & Neck Centre for Oncology and Reconstruction
(3)
Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Undergraduate Medical Education

References

  1. Enomoto LM, Bann DV, Hollenbeak CS, Goldenberg D. Trends in the incidence of oropharyngeal cancers in the United States. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;154:1034–40. SAGE Publications.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Marur S, D’Souza G, Westra WH, Forastiere AA. HPV-associated head and neck cancer: a virus-related cancer epidemic. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:781–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Gillison ML, Chaturvedi AK, Anderson WF, Fakhry C. Epidemiology of human papillomavirus-positive head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3235–42. American Society of Clinical Oncology.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Osazuwa-Peters N, Tutlam NT. Knowledge and risk perception of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer among non-medical university students. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;45:5. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Lindsay C, Seikaly H, Biron VL. Epigenetics of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: opportunities for novel chemotherapeutic targets. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;46:9. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Isaac A, Kostiuk M, Zhang H, Lindsay C, Makki F, O’Connell DA, et al. Ultrasensitive detection of oncogenic human papillomavirus in oropharyngeal tissue swabs. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;46:5. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Biron VL, Kostiuk M, Isaac A, Puttagunta L, O’Connell DA, Harris J, et al. Detection of human papillomavirus type 16 in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. Cancer. 2016;122(10):1544–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark J, Jeffery CC, Zhang H, Cooper T, O’Connell DA, Harris J, et al. Correlation of PET-CT nodal SUVmax with p16 positivity in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44:37. BioMed Central Ltd.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Seikaly H, Biron VL, Zhang H, O’Connell DA, Côté DWJ, Ansari K, et al. The role of primary surgery in the treatment of advanced oropharyngeal cancer. Head Neck. 2016;38 Suppl 1:E571-9. doi:10.1002/hed.24042. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
  10. Cooper T, Biron VL, Fast D, Tam R, Carey T, Shmulevitz M, et al. Oncolytic activity of reovirus in HPV positive and negative head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44:8. BioMed Central Ltd.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Ang KK, Harris J, Wheeler R, Weber R, Rosenthal DI, Nguyen-Tân PF, et al. Human papillomavirus and survival of patients with oropharyngeal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:24–35.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. O Connell D, Seikaly H, Murphy R, Fung C, Cooper T, Knox A, et al. Primary surgery versus chemoradiotherapy for advanced oropharyngeal cancers: a longitudinal population study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;42:31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Barber B, Dergousoff J, Slater L, Harris J, O’Connell D, El-Hakim H, et al. Depression and survival in patients with head and neck cancer: a systematic review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142:284–8. American Medical Association.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kumar B, Cordell KG, Lee JS, Worden FP, Prince ME, Tran HH, et al. EGFR, p16, HPV Titer, Bcl-xL and p53, sex, and smoking as indicators of response to therapy and survival in oropharyngeal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3128–37.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Xu CC, Biron VL, Puttagunta L, Seikaly H. HPV Status and second primary tumours in Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;42:36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Kumar B, Cipolla MJ, Old MO, Brown NV, Kang SY, Dziegielewski PT, et al. Surgical management of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: Survival and functional outcomes. Head Neck. 2016;38 Suppl 1:E1794–802.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Mirghani H, Amen F, Tao Y, Deutsch E, Levy A. Increased radiosensitivity of HPV-positive head and neck cancers: Molecular basis and therapeutic perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev. 2015;41:844–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Murray S, Ha MN, Thompson K, Hart RD, Rajaraman M, Snow SL. A different entity: a population based study of characteristics and recurrence patterns in oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44:30. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kerr P, Myers CL, Butler J, Alessa M, Lambert P, Cooke AL. Prospective functional outcomes in sequential population based cohorts of stage III/IV oropharyngeal carcinoma patients treated with 3D conformal vs. intensity modulated radiotherapy. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44:17.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Idris S, Lindsay C, Kostiuk M, Andrews C, Côté DWJ, O’Connell DA, et al. Investigation of EZH2 pathways for novel epigenetic treatment strategies in oropharyngeal cancer. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;45:54. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Cracchiolo JR, Roman BR, Kutler DI, Kuhel WI, Cohen MA. Adoption of transoral robotic surgery compared with other surgical modalities for treatment of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2016;114:405–11.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Cracchiolo JR, Baxi SS, Morris LG, Ganly I, Patel SG, Cohen MA, et al. Increase in primary surgical treatment of T1 and T2 oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma and rates of adverse pathologic features: National Cancer Data Base. Cancer. 2016;122:1523–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Melong JC, Rigby MH, Bullock M, Hart RD, Trites JRB, Taylor SM. Transoral laser microsurgery for the treatment of oropharyngeal cancer: the Dalhousie University experience. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44:39. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Fu TS, Foreman A, Goldstein DP, de Almeida JR. The role of transoral robotic surgery, transoral laser microsurgery, and lingual tonsillectomy in the identification of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary origin: a systematic review. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;45:28. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaczmar JM, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Lin A, Ahn PH, Newman JG, et al. HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer: risk factors for treatment failure in patients managed with primary surgery (TORS). 2016;38(1):59–65. doi:10.1002/hed.23850. Epub 2015 Apr 6.
  26. de Almeida JR, Li R, Magnuson JS, Smith RV, Moore E, Lawson G, et al. Oncologic outcomes after transoral robotic surgery: a multi-institutional study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;141:1043–51. American Medical Association.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW, Magnuson JS, Carroll WR, Olsen KD, Daio L, et al. Transoral robotic surgery: a multicenter study to assess feasibility, safety, and surgical margins. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1701–7. Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW, Cohen MA, Quon H. Transoral robotic surgery for advanced oropharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136:1079–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmitt NC, Duvvuri U. Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;23:127–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Richmon JD, Quon H, Gourin CG. The effect of transoral robotic surgery on short-term outcomes and cost of care after oropharyngeal cancer surgery. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:165–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sharma A, Patel S, Baik FM, Mathison G, Pierce BHG, Khariwala SS, et al. Survival and gastrostomy prevalence in patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated with transoral robotic surgery vs chemoradiotherapy. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;142:691–7. American Medical Association.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Al-Khudari S, Bendix S, Lindholm J, Simmerman E, Hall F, Ghanem T. Gastrostomy tube use after transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal cancer. ISRN Otolaryngol. 2013;2013:190364–5. Hindawi Publishing Corporation.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Mukhija VK, Sung C-K, Desai SC, Wanna G, Genden EM. Transoral robotic assisted free flap reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140:124–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lai C-S, Chen I-C, Liu S-A, Lu C-T, Yen J-H, Song D-Y. Robot-assisted free flap reconstruction of oropharyngeal cancer--a preliminary report. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;74 Suppl 2:S105–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ghanem TA. Transoral robotic-assisted microvascular reconstruction of the oropharynx. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:580–2. Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Garfein ES, Greaney PJ, Easterlin B, Schiff B, Smith RV. Transoral robotic reconstructive surgery reconstruction of a tongue base defect with a radial forearm flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:2352–4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. de Almeida JR, Park RCW, Villanueva NL, Miles BA, Teng MS, Genden EM. Reconstructive algorithm and classification system for transoral oropharyngeal defects. Head Neck. 2014;36:934–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Bonawitz SC, Duvvuri U. Robot-assisted oropharyngeal reconstruction with free tissue transfer. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2012;28:485–90. Thieme Medical Publishers.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Duvvuri U, Bonawitz SC, Kim S. Robotic-assisted oropharyngeal reconstruction. J Robot Surg. 2013;7:9–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Song HG, Yun IS, Lee WJ, Lew DH, Rah DK. Robot-assisted free flap in head and neck reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40:353–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. O’Connell DA, Barber B, Klein MF, Soparlo J, Al-Marzouki H, Harris JR, et al. Algorithm based patient care protocol to optimize patient care and inpatient stay in head and neck free flap patients. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;44:45. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Selber JC, Sarhane KA, Ibrahim AE, Holsinger FC. Transoral robotic reconstructive surgery. Semin Plast Surg. 2014;28:35–8. Thieme Medical Publishers.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. O’Connell DA, Rieger J, Harris JR, Dziegielewski P, Zalmanowitz J, Sytsanko A, et al. Swallowing function in patients with base of tongue cancers treated with primary surgery and reconstructed with a modified radial forearm free flap. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134:857–64. American Medical Association.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Seikaly H, Rieger J, O’Connell D, Ansari K, Alqahtani K, Harris J. Beavertail modification of the radial forearm free flap in base of tongue reconstruction: technique and functional outcomes. Head Neck. 2009;31:213–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Seikaly H, Rieger J, Zalmanowitz J, Tang JL, Alkahtani K, Ansari K, et al. Functional soft palate reconstruction: a comprehensive surgical approach. Head Neck. 2008;30:1615–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sataloff RT, Benninger MS. Sataloff’s Comprehensive Textbook of Otolaryngology: Head & Neck Surgery. In: Seikaly H, O’Connell DA, Rieger JM, Ansari K, Harris JR eds. Functional Oropharyngeal Reconstruction: An Evidence-Based Approach. Philadelphia: JP Medical Ltd; 2015. p 905–926.
  47. O’Connell DA, Reiger J, Dziegielewski PT, Tang JL, Wolfaardt J, Harris JR, et al. Effect of lingual and hypoglossal nerve reconstruction on swallowing function in head and neck surgery: prospective functional outcomes study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;38:246–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Chau J, Harris J, Nesbitt P, Allen H, Guillemaud J, Seikaly H. Radial forearm donor site: comparison of the functional and cosmetic outcomes of different reconstructive methods. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;38:294–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Rieger JM, Zalmanowitz JG, Li SYY, Sytsanko A, Harris J, Williams D, et al. Functional outcomes after surgical reconstruction of the base of tongue using the radial forearm free flap in patients with oropharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck. 2007;29:1024–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Chepeha DB, Wang SJ, Marentette LJ, Thompson BG, Prince ME, Teknos TN. Radial forearm free tissue transfer reduces complications in salvage skull base surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;131:958–63.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Orlik JR, Horwich P, Bartlett C, Trites J, Hart R, Taylor SM. Long-term functional donor site morbidity of the free radial forearm flap in head and neck cancer survivors. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;43:1. BioMed Central Ltd.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Chung J, Bonaparte JP, Odell M, Corsten M. The effect of topically applied tissue expanders on radial forearm skin pliability: a prospective self-controlled study. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;43:8. BioMed Central.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Dziegielewski PT, Mlynarek AM, Dimitry J, Harris JR, Seikaly H. The mandibulotomy: friend or foe? Safety outcomes and literature review. Laryngoscope. 2009;119:2369–75.

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement