Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of robot‐assisted neck dissections

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundRobot‐assisted neck dissection (RAND) for the management of the regional lymphatic basin offers the potential for improved cosmesis and reduced lymphedema. While RAND has been previously described, functional outcome and oncologic control rates need further elucidation.MethodsA retrospective, matched cohort study of neck dissections completed at UPMC from 2017 to 2021 was conducted. RAND was identified and matched to open neck dissections (open) in a 1:2 ratio. Matching characteristics included primary cancer site, pre‐operative clinical N‐stage, age at time of surgery, HPV status, and previous chemoradiation treatment (salvage vs. nonsalvage procedure). Additional information was collected on patient demographics, surgery characteristics, and outcomes. Comparisons were made using t‐test, chi‐square test, Fisher's exact test, and Kaplan–Meier Wilcoxon (KMW) test with p < 0.05 indicating significance.ResultsOverall, RAND and open groups had similar distributions of age, gender, BMI, primary site of cancer, HPV status, clinical N‐stage, clinical T‐stage, known neck disease prior to procedure, prior chemoradiation therapy, and level(s) of neck dissection. Surgically, RAND procedures yielded less drainage on average (124 mL in RAND vs. 220 mL in open approaches; p = 0.01). There was no difference in the rates of complications, estimated blood loss, or number of lymph nodes obtained. There were also no differences in the rates of adjuvant therapy. Long term, there were no differences in the rates of local, locoregional, and distant recurrence of primary disease between RAND and open procedures. There were also no differences in postprocedure disease‐free survival time (KMW p‐value = 0.32; HR [of RAND compared with open] = 0.62). Similarly, there were no statistical differences in the overall survival of RAND patients when compared with the open group (75 vs. 58.9 months; HR = 0.11, p = 0.87).ConclusionThis study is the first to report the long‐term effectiveness of robot‐assisted surgery compared with the traditional, open approach. In addition to well‐known cosmetic benefits, robot‐assisted surgery may also offer patients a reduction in uncomfortable drains and improved effects from lymphedema. Overall, this study provides initial data that the RAND may be considered as an alternative approach to open surgery.