To evaluate Oncological and Quality of life outcomes between Robotic and open neck dissection for oral cavity cancers: A prospective trial.

Date 24 November 2018
Event ESMO Asia 2018 Congress
Session Poster display - Cocktail
Topics Surgical Oncology
Head and Neck Cancers
Presenter Karan Gupta
Citation Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_9): ix94-ix104. 10.1093/annonc/mdy438
Authors K. Gupta, S. Dabas
  • Department Of Head-neck And Thoracic Surgical Oncology, Fortis Memorial Research Institute, 122002 - Gurgaon/IN

Abstract

Background

To assess and compare the oncological outcome, Quality of life (QOL) and cosmetic outcomes between remote access Robotic neck dissection and standard open neck dissection for oral cavity cancers.

Methods

From March, 2015 to April, 2017, 64 patients of oral cavity cancers were included in the study. Thirty two patients underwent remote access (Retro-auricular) robotic neck dissection and 32 patients underwent standard open neck dissection. The oncological outcome was compared using the average lymph node yield in each neck dissection and the QOL, shoulder dysfunction and cosmetic outcome was assessed using the Neck Dissection Impairment (NDI) Index and patient questionnaire.

Results

Of the 64 patients, 32 underwent Retro-auricular Robotic Neck dissection and 32 underwent open neck dissection. The demographic and clinical data of the patients is shown in the table.Table: 309P

CharacteristicRobotic Neck dissectionOpen Neck dissectionp-value
Gender
Male23190.29
Female913
Age46.8 ± 12.7 years49.5 ± 11.9 years0.89
Mean Follow-up26.4 months (13-38 months)28.3 months (13-38 months)0.42
Primary site
Tongue17140.45
Buccal mucosa1518
cT Stage
cT124230.78
cT289
cN Stage
cN03232
Extent of Neck dissection
SND (I-IV)3232

The mean lymph node yield with Robotic neck dissection was 27.9 nodes as compared to 28.5 nodes per neck dissection in open neck dissection (p = 0.35). On comparing the QOL and shoulder morbidity issues using the NDI Index, the mean score was 67.1 with Robotic neck dissection and 64.9 with open neck dissection (p = 0.21). The cosmetic outcome as reported by the patients was suggestive of a mean score of 84.4 with robotic neck dissection as compared to 54.7 with open neck dissection, which was highly statistically significant (p<.00001).

Conclusions

The remote access robotic neck dissection is oncologically comparable with open neck dissection with equally good post-operative QOL and shoulder function with statistically significant better cosmetic outcome as compared to standard open neck dissection.

Editorial acknowledgement

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Karan Gupta.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.