Journal of Robotic Surgery

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 455–461 | Cite as

Early assessment of feasibility and technical specificities of transoral robotic surgery using the da Vinci Xi

  • Philippe Gorphe
  • Jean Von Tan
  • Sophie El Bedoui
  • Dana M. Hartl
  • Anne Auperin
  • Quentin Qassemyar
  • Antoine Moya-Plana
  • François Janot
  • Morbize Julieron
  • Stephane Temam
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The latest generation Da Vinci® Xi™ Surgical System Robot released has not been evaluated to date in transoral surgery for head and neck cancers. We report here the 1-year results of a non-randomized phase II multicentric prospective trial aimed at assessing its feasibility and technical specificities. Our primary objective was to evaluate the feasibility of transoral robotic surgery using the da Vinci® Xi™ Surgical System Robot. The secondary objective was to assess peroperative outcomes. Twenty-seven patients, mean age 62.7 years, were included between May 2015 and June 2016 with tumors affecting the following sites: oropharynx (n = 21), larynx (n = 4), hypopharynx (n = 1), parapharyngeal space (n = 1). Eighteen patients were included for primary treatment, three for a local recurrence, and six for cancer in a previously irradiated field. Three were reconstructed with a FAMM flap and 6 with a free ALT flap. The mean docking time was 12 min. “Chopsticking” of surgical instruments was very rare. During hospitalization following surgery, 3 patients experienced significant bleeding between day 8 and 9 that required surgical transoral hemostasis (n = 1) or endovascular embolization (n = 2). Transoral robotic surgery using the da Vinci® Xi™ Surgical System Robot proved feasible with technological improvements compared to previous generation surgical system robots and with a similar postoperative course. Further technological progress is expected to be of significant benefit to the patients.

Keywords

Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) da Vinci® Xi™ Surgical System Robot Peroperative outcomes Postoperative complications 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are very grateful to Lorna Saint Ange for editing and to Professor Stéphane Hans and Professor Georges Lawson for their advices.

Compliance with the ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Philippe Gorphe, Jean Von Tan, Sophie El Beboui, Dana M Hartl, Anne Auperin, Quentin Qassemyar, Antoine Moya-Plana, François Janot, Morbize Julieron, and Stéphane Temam declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Hockstein NG (2005) Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic laryngectomy in a canine model. Laryngoscope 115:1315–1319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Malley BW Jr, Weinstein GS, Snyder W, Hockstein NG (2006) Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for base of tongue neoplasms. Laryngoscope 116:1465–1472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Snyder W et al (2007) Transoral robotic surgery: radical tonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:1220–1226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’Malley BW Jr, Weinstein GS (2007) Robotic skull base surgery: preclinical investigations to human clinical application. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:1215–1219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore EJ, Olsen KD, Kasperbauer JL (2009) Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma: a prospective study of feasibility and functional outcomes. Laryngoscope 119:2156–2164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Genden EM, O’Malley BW Jr, Weinstein GS et al (2012) Transoral robotic surgery: role in the management of upper aerodigestive tract tumors. Head Neck 34:886–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hans S, Badoual C, Gorphe P, Brasnu D (2012) Transoral robotic surgery for head and neck carcinomas. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 269:1979–1984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vergez S, Lallemant B, Ceruse P et al (2012) Initial multi-institutional experience with transoral robotic surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147:475–481CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW Jr, Magnuson JS et al (2012) Transoral robotic surgery: a multicenter study to assess feasibility, safety, and surgical margins. Laryngoscope 122:1701–1707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Almeida JR, Li R, Magnuson JS et al (2015) Oncologic outcomes after transoral robotic surgery: a multi-institutional study. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 141:1043–1051CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holsinger FC, Ferris RL (2015) Transoral endoscopic head and neck surgery and its role within the multidisciplinary treatment paradigm of oropharynx cancer: robotics, lasers, and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 33:3285–3292CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gross ND, Holsinger FC, Magnuson JS et al (2016) Robotics in otolaryngology and head and neck surgery: recommendations for training and credentialing: a report of the 2015 AHNS education committee, AAO-HNS robotic task force and AAO-HNS sleep disorders committee. Head Neck 38(Suppl 1):E151–E158CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Razafindranaly V, Lallemant B, Aubry K et al (2016) Clinical outcomes with transoral robotic surgery for supraglottic squamous cell carcinoma: experience of a french evaluation cooperative subgroup of GETTEC. Head Neck 38(Suppl 1):E1097–1101CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen MM, Holsinger FC (2016) Morbidity and mortality associated with robotic head and neck surgery: an inquiry of the food and drug administration manufacturer and user facility device experience database. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142:405–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aubry K, Vergez S, de Mones E et al (2016) Morbidity and mortality revue of the French group of transoral robotic surgery: a multicentric study. J Robot Surg 10:63–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Asher SA, White HN, Kejner AE et al (2013) Hemorrhage after transoral robotic-assisted surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 149:112–117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chia SH, Gross ND, Richmon JD (2013) Surgeon experience and complications with transoral robotic surgery (TORS). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 149:885–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holsinger FC, McWhorter AJ, Menard M et al (2005) Transoral lateral oropharyngectomy for squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsillar region: I. Technique, complications, and functional results. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 131:583–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holsinger FC (2016) A flexible, single-arm robotic surgical system for transoral resection of the tonsil and lateral pharyngeal wall: next-generation robotic head and neck surgery. Laryngoscope 126:864–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philippe Gorphe
    • 1
  • Jean Von Tan
    • 2
  • Sophie El Bedoui
    • 2
  • Dana M. Hartl
    • 1
  • Anne Auperin
    • 1
  • Quentin Qassemyar
    • 1
  • Antoine Moya-Plana
    • 1
  • François Janot
    • 1
  • Morbize Julieron
    • 2
  • Stephane Temam
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Head and Neck OncologyGustave RoussyVillejuifFrance
  2. 2.Department of Head and Neck OncologyOscar LambretLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations