Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Technical Feasibility of Non-robotic Retroauricular Versus Transcervical Approach Neck Dissection in Oral Cancers—a Preliminary Single Institute Experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent advances in minimal access/invasive surgeries in head and neck (robotic/endoscopic assisted) allow neck dissection without a visible scar through a retroauricular approach unlike conventional approach giving visible scar and its sequelae. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of 80 neck dissections in 72 patients from April 2017 to June 2018 for all newly diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma of oral cavity. We compared between the operative and postoperative outcomes in open- and endoscopic-assisted retroauricular approach (RA) in these patients undergoing neck dissections. Thirty-two out of seventy-two patients underwent retroauricular (RA) approach neck dissection while 40/72 patients underwent conventional open approach neck dissection. RA group had more early staged oral cancers 20/32 (62.5%) as compared to 9/40 (22.5%) in the open approach (p = 0.025). Average nodal yield and nodal yield according to levels were not statistically different in both groups. Nodal failure in both groups was also not statistically significant (p = 0.82). Postoperative complications like marginal weakness, hematoma, microvascular-related problems, and wound problems were not significantly related to the type of approach. We recommend in select group of early oral cancers the retroauricular-assisted neck dissection as minimally invasive, cost-effective, and oncologically safe approach for a scar-free neck surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

With corresponding author.

Abbreviations

RA:

retroauricular approach

MFL:

modified facelift

SND:

selective neck dissection

MND:

modified neck dissection

RND:

radical neck dissection

EJV:

external jugular vein

GAN:

greater auricular nerve

SCM:

sternocleidomastoid muscle

References

  1. Ahn D, Sohn JH, Lee GJ, Hwang KH (2017) Feasibility of using the retroauricular approach without endoscopic or robotic assistance for excision of benign neck masses. Head Neck 39:748–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Melvin T-AN, Eliades SJ, Ha PK, Fakhry C, Saunders JM, Califano JA, Blanco RGF (2012) Neck dissection through a facelift incision. Laryngoscope. 122:2700–2706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Muenscher A, Dalchow C, Kutta H, Knecht R (2011) The endoscopic approach to the neck: a review of the literature, and overview of the various techniques. Surg Endosc 25(5):1358–1363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lee HS, Kim D, Lee SY, Byeon HK, Kim WS, Hong HJ et al (2014) Robot-assisted versus endoscopic submandibular gland resection via retroauricular approach: a prospective nonrandomized study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 52(2):179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2013.11.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Park YM, Byeon HK, Chung HP, Rho KJ, Kim SH (2013) Robotic resection of benign neck masses via a retroauricular approach. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 23(7):578–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee HS, Lee D, Koo YC, Shin HA, Koh YW, Choi EC (2013) Endoscopic resection of upper neck masses via retroauricular approach is feasible with excellent cosmetic outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(3):520–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.06.170

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Park YM, Holsinger FC, Kim WS, Park SC, Lee EJ, Choi EC, Koh YW (2013) Robot-assisted selective neck dissection of levels II to V via a modified facelift or retroauricular approach. Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg (United States) 148(5):778–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee HS, Kim WS, Hong HJ, Ban MJ, Lee D, Koh YW, Choi EC (2012) Robot-assisted supraomohyoid neck dissection via a modified face-lift or retroauricular approach in early-stage cN0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a comparative study with conventional technique. Ann Surg Oncol 19(12):3871–3878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim WS, Byeon HK, Park YM, Ha JG, Kim ES (2015) Therapeutic robot-assisted neck dissection via a retroauricular or modified facelift approach in head and neck cancer: a comparative study with conventional transcervical neck dissection. Head Neck 37(2):249–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23595

  10. Sannikorn P, Nut N (2015) Endoscopic assisted neck dissection via retro auricular approach versus conventional technique. Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 2(5):1040

    Google Scholar 

  11. Byeon HK, Holsinger FC, Koh YW, Ban MJ, Ha JG, Park JJ, Kim D, Choi EC (2014) Endoscopic supraomohyoid neck dissection via a retroauricular or modified facelift approach: preliminary results. Head Neck 36:425–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim J-Y, Cho H, Cha I-H, Nam W (2014) Esthetic neck dissection using an endoscope via retroauricular incision: a report of two cases. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 40(1):27–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. D’Cruz AK, Vaish R, Kapre N, Dandekar M, Gupta S, Hawaldar R, Agarwal JP, Pantvaidya G, Chaukar D, Deshmukh A, Kane S, Arya S, Ghosh-Laskar S, Chaturvedi P, Pai P, Nair S, Nair D, Badwe R (2015) Elective versus therapeutic neck dissection in node-negative oral cancer. N Engl J Med 373(6):521–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lira RB, Chulam TC, Koh YW, Choi EC (2016) Retroauricular endoscope-assisted approach to the neck : early experience in Latin America. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 20:138–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lira RB, Chulam TC, Carvalho GB de, Schreuder WH, Koh YW, Choi EC, et al. Retroauricular endoscopic and robotic versus conventional neck dissection for oral cancer. J Robot Surg. 2017

  16. Kang SW, Lee SH, Ryu HR, Lee KY, Jeong JJ, Nam KH et al (2010) Initial experience with robot-assisted modified radical neck dissection for the management of thyroid carcinoma with lateral neck node metastasis. Surgery 148(6):1214–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2010.09.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tae K, Ji YB, Song CM, Jeong JH, Cho SH, Lee SH (2014) Robotic selective neck dissection by a postauricular facelift approach: comparison with conventional neck dissection. Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg (United States) 150(3):394–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Albergotti WG, Byrd JK, De Almeida JR, Kim S, Ummamaheshwar D (2014) Robotic-assisted level II-IV neck dissection through a modified facelift incision: initial North American experience. Int J Med Robot 10(4):391–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Capelli F de A, Paes VR, Machado MM, Menezes CL, Silva PRA d, SAC S et al (2016) Quantitative analysis of lymph nodes in neck dissection specimens. Morphologic study. Acta Cir Bras 31(7):428–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pou JD, Barton BM, Lawlor CM, Frederick CH, Moore BA, Hasney CP (2017) Minimum lymph node yield in elective level I–III neck dissection. Laryngoscope. 127(9):2070–2073

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Oncology, Zydus Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

    Siddharth Shah, Aditi Bhatt, Raghuvir Solanki, Nirav Thakkar, Sakina Shaikh & Mahesh H Patel

Authors
  1. Siddharth Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aditi Bhatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raghuvir Solanki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nirav Thakkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sakina Shaikh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mahesh H Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

1. Siddharth Shah – concept, drafting, data entry and analysis, and primary surgeon

2. Aditi Bhatt – peer review and article drafting

3. Raghuvir Solanki – peer review and surgical contribution

4. Nirav Thakkar – data collecting and entering

5. Sakina Shaikh – record keeping and data collection

6. Mahesh Patel – mentor, supervising, and peer review

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siddharth Shah.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, S., Bhatt, A., Solanki, R. et al. Comparing Technical Feasibility of Non-robotic Retroauricular Versus Transcervical Approach Neck Dissection in Oral Cancers—a Preliminary Single Institute Experience. Indian J Surg Oncol 11, 589–596 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-020-01252-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-020-01252-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation