Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Robotic transoral approach for salvage retropharyngeal node dissection: an analysis of functional and oncological outcomes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Presence of metastatic tumour in the retropharyngeal node has a negative impact on the prognosis. We present here our 5-year experience and the outcomes of transoral robotic retropharyngeal node dissection (RPND) in salvage settings. Hospital database was accessed to extract details of patients with head and neck cancer who developed retropharyngeal (RP) node metastasis. Patients who underwent transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for RPND in salvage settings were included for the study. Patients were first followed-up after 10 days of discharge and then on a monthly basis after completion of treatment. At each follow-up, swallow functions and disease status were recorded. A total of 10 patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent salvage transoral robotic RPND. The total number of lymph nodes removed from these patients were 11, with all having malignant tumour deposits. The median follow-up was 20 months. Four patients developed distant metastasis. There were no major procedure-related complications. Our experience suggests that TORS as treatment modality is oncologically sound and feasible for salvage RP node dissection.

Level of evidence Retrospective Study (3).

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Harnsberger HR (1995) Handbook of head and neck imaging, 2nd edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 89–104

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rouvière H. Anatomie des lymphatiques de l’homme. Masson et Cie, 1932. Anatomy of the human lymphatic system. English edition. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers; 1938. p. 16–8.

  3. Som PM (1987) Lymph nodes of the neck. Radiology 165:593–600

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mitsuru O, Tomohiro I, Tatsuhiko S, Sachika S, Ryuji M. et al Role of radiation therapy for retropharyngeal lymph node area in hypopharyngeal cancer. Glob J Oto, 2018; 16(2): 555935. https://doi.org/10.19080/GJO.2018.16.555935

  5. Dirix P, Nuyts S, Bussels B et al (2006) Prognostic influence of retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:739–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McLaughlin MP, Mendenhall WM, Mancuso AA et al (1995) Retropharyngeal adenopathy as a predictor of outcome in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck 17:190–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ballantyne AJ (1964) Significance of retropharyngeal nodes in cancer of the head and neck. Am J Surg 108:500–504

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Vasan, N. R., & Medina, J. E. (2004). Retropharyngeal node dissection. Operative Techniques in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery

  9. Chan JY, Chow VL, Wong ST, Wei WI (2013) Surgical salvage for recurrent retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Head Neck 35(12):1726–1731. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23214 (Epub 2013 Mar 6 PMID: 23468231)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sharma M, Bartlett E, Yu E. Metastatic retropharyngeal lymph nodes in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: imaging criteria [published correction appears in Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011 Jun;11(6):968]. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2010;10(11):1703–6. https://doi.org/10.1586/era.10.159

  11. Messing BP, Ward EC, Lazarus CL et al (2017) Prophylactic swallow therapy for patients with head and neck cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy: a randomized trial. Dysphagia 32(4):487–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00455-017-9790-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Granell J, Mendez-Benegassi I, Millas T, Garrido L, Gutierrez-Fonseca R (2014) Transoral robotic surgery: step-by-step radical tonsillectomy. Case Reports in Otolaryngology, 497528. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/497528

  13. Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW, Snyder W, et al. (2007) Transoral robotic surgery: radical tonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 133:1220Y1226

  14. Weinstein GS, O’Malley BW, Snyder W, et al. (2007) Transoral robotic surgery: supraglottic partial laryngectomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 116:19Y23

  15. O’Malley BW, Weinstein GS, Snyder W, et al. (2006) Transoral robotic surgery for base of tongue neoplasms. Laryngoscope 116:1465Y1472

  16. Rouviere H. Anatomy of the human lymphatic system. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1938

  17. Mancuso AA, Harnsberger HR, Muraki AS, Stevens MH (1983) Computed tomography of cervical and retropharyngeal lymph nodes: normal anatomy, variants of normal, and applications in staging head and neck cancer Part I: nor- mal anatomy. Radiology 148:709–714

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Butta L, Lombardi D, Marconi A, et al. (2010) Transoral excision of a retropharyngeal lymph node under rigid endoscopic control. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 119:211Y214

  19. Le TD, Cohen JI. (2007) Transoral approach to removal of the retropharyngeal lymph nodes in well-differentiated thyroid cancer. Laryngoscope 117:1155Y1158

  20. Dirix P, Nuyts S, Bussels B, Hermans R, Van den Bogaert W (2006) Prognostic influence of retropharyngeal lymph node metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65(3):739–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2006.02.027 (PMID: 16751062)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anand Subash.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Surender K Dabas, Yash Chaddha, Ashwini Sharma, Himanshu Shukla, Reetesh Ranjan, Bikas Gurung, Ranjit Padhiari, Anand Subash declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

IRB approval was not required as this was a retrospective analysis of outcomes.

Informed consents

Informed consents were obtained from all patients.

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

Dabas, S.K., Chaddha, Y., Sharma, A. et al. Robotic transoral approach for salvage retropharyngeal node dissection: an analysis of functional and oncological outcomes. J Robotic Surg 16, 333–338 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01241-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01241-4

Keywords

Navigation