Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 May 23;13(11):3055.
doi: 10.3390/jcm13113055.

Perception of Young European Otolaryngologists toward Transoral Robotic Surgery in Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery

Affiliations

Perception of Young European Otolaryngologists toward Transoral Robotic Surgery in Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery

Jerome R Lechien et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: To investigate the perception of young European otolaryngologists (OTOs), i.e., head and neck surgeons, toward transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Methods: Members of the Young Confederation of European Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Young Otolaryngologists of International Federation of Otorhinolaryngological Societies were surveyed about TORS perception and practice. Results: The survey was completed by 120 young OTOS (26%). The most important barriers to TORS were robot availability (73%), cost (69%), and lack of training (37%). The participants believed that the main benefits include better surgical filed view (64%), shorter hospital stay (62%), and better postoperative outcomes (61%) than the conventional approach. Head and neck surgeons considered cT1-T2 oropharyngeal cancers (94%), resection of base of tongue for sleep apnea (86%), or primary unknown cancer (76%) as the most appropriate indications. A total of 67% of TORS surgeons assessed themselves as adequately trained in TORS. Conclusions: Young European OTOs report positive perception, adoption, and knowledge of TORS. The cost-related unavailability and the lack of training or access are reported to be the most important barriers for the spread of TORS.

Keywords: awareness; head and neck; otolaryngology; robotic; surgery; survey; transoral; young.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Some young authors from the YO-IFOS and y-CEORL (J.R.L., N.F., T.R., A.S., I.G., G.I., G.C., and A.M.) are interested in the development of robotic surgery, which could be considered as a conflict of interest. Moreover, A.S., and S.H. received training from Intuitive® (Oracle, CA, USA) prior to using the Da Vinci robot, which can be considered as an additional conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Training and instrument outcomes. The figure included the favorite instruments of TORS surgeons ((A): % of use), the mouth retractor used ((B); % of use), and the training provided (C). Abbreviations: OTO = otolaryngologist.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lörincz B.B., Jowett N., Knecht R. Decision management in transoral robotic surgery: Indications, individual patient selection, and role in the multidisciplinary treatment for head and neck cancer from a European perspective. Head Neck. 2016;38((Suppl. S1)):E2190–E2196. doi: 10.1002/hed.24059. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sejima T., Morizane S., Fujiwara K., Ashida K., Saito H., Taniguchi Y., Nakamura H., Takenaka A. The First Pilot Comprehensive Evaluation of the Outcomes of Different Types of Robotic Surgeries in the Different Surgical Departments: The Penta, Tetra and Trifecta Achievements in Robotic Surgeries. Yonago Acta Med. 2016;59:135–142. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Caporale C.D., Chiari F., D’Alessio P., Barbara F., Guarino P. Transoral robotic surgery for supraglottic cancer. A review of oncological and functional outcomes compared to open surgery. Acta Otorhinolaryngol. Ital. 2024;44((Suppl. S1)):S20–S27. doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-suppl.1-44-2024-N2919. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lechien J.R., Haddad L., Holsinger F.C., Mendelsohn A.H., Hans S. Awareness, Perception and Adoption of Otolaryngologist-Head Neck Surgeons toward Transoral Robotic Surgery: An International Survey. Oral Oncol. 2023;8:95–102. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chillakuru Y., Benito D.A., Strum D., Mehta V., Saini P., Shim T., Darwish C., Joshi A.S., Thakkar P., Goodman J.F. Transoral robotic surgery versus nonrobotic resection of oropharyngealsquamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2021;43:2259–2273. doi: 10.1002/hed.26724. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources