7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Current Advances in Robotics for Head and Neck Surgery—A Systematic Review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Simple Summary

          The means of therapy in oncologic diseases have been developing continuously over the past years, intending to improve the overall survival and quality of life of affected patients. In head and neck oncology the surgical therapy is one of the key pillars in curative treatment. The standardized surgical techniques are supplemented and improved by the application of technical devices. The ambition is the reduction in peri- and postoperative morbidity, hospitalization time, and the enhancement of functional outcome. In other surgical specialties, the application of robotics is widely seen as standard. The purpose of this review is to outline the current status of robotics in head and neck surgery in the context of the present literature, to demonstrate reasonable application fields, and to discuss the expenditure of the usage of such tools. Furthermore, this review offers an overview of current research in this field.

          Abstract

          Background. In the past few years, surgical robots have recently entered the medical field, particularly in urology, gynecology, and general surgery. However, the clinical effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in the field of head and neck surgery has not been clearly established. In this review, we evaluate to what extent RAS can potentially be applied in head and neck surgery, in which fields it is already daily routine and what advantages can be seen in comparison to conventional surgery. Data sources. For this purpose, we conducted a systematic review of trials published between 2000 and 2021, as well as currently ongoing trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov. The results were structured according to anatomical regions, for the topics “Costs,” “current clinical trials,” and “robotic research” we added separate sections for the sake of clarity. Results. Our findings show a lack of large-scale systematic randomized trials on the use of robots in head and neck surgery. Most studies include small case series or lack a control arm which enables a comparison with established standard procedures. Conclusion. The question of financial reimbursement is still not answered and the systems on the market still require some specific improvements for the use in head and neck surgery.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Continuum Robots for Medical Applications: A Survey

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Radiotherapy versus transoral robotic surgery and neck dissection for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (ORATOR): an open-label, phase 2, randomised trial

            Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) with concurrent neck dissection has supplanted radiotherapy in the USA as the most common treatment for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), yet no randomised trials have compared these modalities. We aimed to evaluate differences in quality of life (QOL) 1 year after treatment.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              30 Years of Robotic Surgery.

              The idea of reproducing himself with the use of a mechanical robot structure has been in man's imagination in the last 3000 years. However, the use of robots in medicine has only 30 years of history. The application of robots in surgery originates from the need of modern man to achieve two goals: the telepresence and the performance of repetitive and accurate tasks. The first "robot surgeon" used on a human patient was the PUMA 200 in 1985. In the 1990s, scientists developed the concept of "master-slave" robot, which consisted of a robot with remote manipulators controlled by a surgeon at a surgical workstation. Despite the lack of force and tactile feedback, technical advantages of robotic surgery, such as 3D vision, stable and magnified image, EndoWrist instruments, physiologic tremor filtering, and motion scaling, have been considered fundamental to overcome many of the limitations of the laparoscopic surgery. Since the approval of the da Vinci(®) robot by international agencies, American, European, and Asian surgeons have proved its factibility and safety for the performance of many different robot-assisted surgeries. Comparative studies of robotic and laparoscopic surgical procedures in general surgery have shown similar results with regard to perioperative, oncological, and functional outcomes. However, higher costs and lack of haptic feedback represent the major limitations of current robotic technology to become the standard technique of minimally invasive surgery worldwide. Therefore, the future of robotic surgery involves cost reduction, development of new platforms and technologies, creation and validation of curriculum and virtual simulators, and conduction of randomized clinical trials to determine the best applications of robotics.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Cancers (Basel)
                Cancers (Basel)
                cancers
                Cancers
                MDPI
                2072-6694
                19 March 2021
                March 2021
                : 13
                : 6
                : 1398
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Ulm University Medical Center, 89075 Ulm, Germany; rene.graesslin@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de (R.G.); marie-nicole.theodoraki@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de (M.-N.T.); leon.schild@ 123456uni-ulm.de (L.S.); jens.greve@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de (J.G.); ent.department@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de (T.K.H.)
                [2 ]Surgical Oncology Ulm, i2SOUL Consortium, 89075 Ulm, Germany
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: felix.boehm@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de (F.B.); patrick.schuler@ 123456uniklinik-ulm.de (P.J.S.); Tel.: +49-731-500-59501 (F.B. & P.J.S.); Fax: +49-731-500-59502 (F.B. & P.J.S.)
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7291-7737
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3271-7682
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0628-0608
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1065-8709
                Article
                cancers-13-01398
                10.3390/cancers13061398
                8003460
                33808621
                5395298e-135c-4508-963a-e7a54b7b8aae
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 14 February 2021
                : 17 March 2021
                Categories
                Systematic Review

                robotics,robotic surgical procedures,tors,head and neck neoplasms,haptics,costs

                Comments

                Comment on this article