Robot-assisted versus endoscopic submandibular gland resection via retroauricular approach: A prospective nonrandomized study

Hyoung Shin Lee, Dae Kim, So Yoon Lee, Hyung Kwon Byeon, Won Shik Kim, Hyun Jun Hong, Yoon Woo Koh, Eun Chang Choi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinicopathological results of robot-assisted and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland by the retroauricular approach. We present a prospective, non-random, study of 35 patients who had endoscope-assisted (n = 22), or robot-assisted (n = 13), resection of the submandibular gland using a retroauricular approach. Patients selected one of the two methods, and short-term clinical outcomes were then compared, including maximum diameter of the tumour and gland, length of incision, total operating time, amount of operative bleeding, amount and duration of drainage, duration of hospital stay, cosmesis, and complications. The operation was feasible in all patients with no appreciable operative complications or need to convert to a conventional open operation. The operating time of the robot-assisted group (63.4 (6.3) min) was comparable with that of the endoscopic group (66.5 (9.1) min) (p = 0.15). There were no differences in the other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Both groups of patients were extremely satisfied with their postoperative cosmesis, and did not differ significantly (p = 0.89). Robotic and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland gave comparable early surgical outcomes and excellent cosmetic results. Despite the technical convenience for the surgeon, the robot gave no apparent clinical benefit over the endoscope in this series.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)179-184
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume52
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014 Feb 1

Fingerprint

Submandibular Gland
Prospective Studies
Endoscopes
Robotics
Operative Time
Cosmetics
Drainage
Length of Stay
Hemorrhage
Neoplasms

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Oral Surgery
  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Lee, Hyoung Shin ; Kim, Dae ; Lee, So Yoon ; Byeon, Hyung Kwon ; Kim, Won Shik ; Hong, Hyun Jun ; Koh, Yoon Woo ; Choi, Eun Chang. / Robot-assisted versus endoscopic submandibular gland resection via retroauricular approach : A prospective nonrandomized study. In: British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2014 ; Vol. 52, No. 2. pp. 179-184.
@article{eda1ee7b77cc42dfbbfd1d3a6ef913de,
title = "Robot-assisted versus endoscopic submandibular gland resection via retroauricular approach: A prospective nonrandomized study",
abstract = "The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinicopathological results of robot-assisted and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland by the retroauricular approach. We present a prospective, non-random, study of 35 patients who had endoscope-assisted (n = 22), or robot-assisted (n = 13), resection of the submandibular gland using a retroauricular approach. Patients selected one of the two methods, and short-term clinical outcomes were then compared, including maximum diameter of the tumour and gland, length of incision, total operating time, amount of operative bleeding, amount and duration of drainage, duration of hospital stay, cosmesis, and complications. The operation was feasible in all patients with no appreciable operative complications or need to convert to a conventional open operation. The operating time of the robot-assisted group (63.4 (6.3) min) was comparable with that of the endoscopic group (66.5 (9.1) min) (p = 0.15). There were no differences in the other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Both groups of patients were extremely satisfied with their postoperative cosmesis, and did not differ significantly (p = 0.89). Robotic and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland gave comparable early surgical outcomes and excellent cosmetic results. Despite the technical convenience for the surgeon, the robot gave no apparent clinical benefit over the endoscope in this series.",
author = "Lee, {Hyoung Shin} and Dae Kim and Lee, {So Yoon} and Byeon, {Hyung Kwon} and Kim, {Won Shik} and Hong, {Hyun Jun} and Koh, {Yoon Woo} and Choi, {Eun Chang}",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.11.002",
language = "English",
volume = "52",
pages = "179--184",
journal = "British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0266-4356",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "2",

}

Robot-assisted versus endoscopic submandibular gland resection via retroauricular approach : A prospective nonrandomized study. / Lee, Hyoung Shin; Kim, Dae; Lee, So Yoon; Byeon, Hyung Kwon; Kim, Won Shik; Hong, Hyun Jun; Koh, Yoon Woo; Choi, Eun Chang.

In: British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 52, No. 2, 01.02.2014, p. 179-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Robot-assisted versus endoscopic submandibular gland resection via retroauricular approach

T2 - A prospective nonrandomized study

AU - Lee, Hyoung Shin

AU - Kim, Dae

AU - Lee, So Yoon

AU - Byeon, Hyung Kwon

AU - Kim, Won Shik

AU - Hong, Hyun Jun

AU - Koh, Yoon Woo

AU - Choi, Eun Chang

PY - 2014/2/1

Y1 - 2014/2/1

N2 - The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinicopathological results of robot-assisted and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland by the retroauricular approach. We present a prospective, non-random, study of 35 patients who had endoscope-assisted (n = 22), or robot-assisted (n = 13), resection of the submandibular gland using a retroauricular approach. Patients selected one of the two methods, and short-term clinical outcomes were then compared, including maximum diameter of the tumour and gland, length of incision, total operating time, amount of operative bleeding, amount and duration of drainage, duration of hospital stay, cosmesis, and complications. The operation was feasible in all patients with no appreciable operative complications or need to convert to a conventional open operation. The operating time of the robot-assisted group (63.4 (6.3) min) was comparable with that of the endoscopic group (66.5 (9.1) min) (p = 0.15). There were no differences in the other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Both groups of patients were extremely satisfied with their postoperative cosmesis, and did not differ significantly (p = 0.89). Robotic and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland gave comparable early surgical outcomes and excellent cosmetic results. Despite the technical convenience for the surgeon, the robot gave no apparent clinical benefit over the endoscope in this series.

AB - The aim of this study was to compare the short-term clinicopathological results of robot-assisted and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland by the retroauricular approach. We present a prospective, non-random, study of 35 patients who had endoscope-assisted (n = 22), or robot-assisted (n = 13), resection of the submandibular gland using a retroauricular approach. Patients selected one of the two methods, and short-term clinical outcomes were then compared, including maximum diameter of the tumour and gland, length of incision, total operating time, amount of operative bleeding, amount and duration of drainage, duration of hospital stay, cosmesis, and complications. The operation was feasible in all patients with no appreciable operative complications or need to convert to a conventional open operation. The operating time of the robot-assisted group (63.4 (6.3) min) was comparable with that of the endoscopic group (66.5 (9.1) min) (p = 0.15). There were no differences in the other clinical outcomes between the 2 groups. Both groups of patients were extremely satisfied with their postoperative cosmesis, and did not differ significantly (p = 0.89). Robotic and endoscopic resection of the submandibular gland gave comparable early surgical outcomes and excellent cosmetic results. Despite the technical convenience for the surgeon, the robot gave no apparent clinical benefit over the endoscope in this series.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84893692945&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84893692945&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.11.002

DO - 10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.11.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 24360715

AN - SCOPUS:84893692945

VL - 52

SP - 179

EP - 184

JO - British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0266-4356

IS - 2

ER -