Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Neck dissection remains the standard of care for regional control of nodal disease in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma, but the conventional trans-cervical approach leaves a visible scar and carries a recognized risk of shoulder morbidity. Remote-access robotic neck dissection has been proposed as a means of preserving oncological adequacy while improving cosmetic and functional outcomes. We report a prospective matched-pair comparison of retro-auricular robotic neck dissection and standard open neck dissection in patients with oral cavity cancer. METHODS: Sixty-four patients undergoing neck dissection for oral cavity carcinoma between January 2020 and December 2025 were enrolled and matched 1:1 by age, sex, tumour subsite and clinical stage; 32 underwent retro-auricular robotic neck dissection and 32 underwent conventional open neck dissection. Oncological adequacy was assessed by lymph node yield per dissection; quality of life and shoulder function were measured with the Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII); and cosmetic outcome was assessed with a structured patient-reported questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean lymph node yield was comparable between the robotic and open groups (23.9 vs 24.6 nodes per dissection; p = 0.542). Mean NDII scores at 3 weeks were similar (65.7 vs 64.2; p = 0.261) and improved over time in both groups. Patient-reported cosmetic satisfaction was significantly higher after robotic neck dissection (12.3 vs 8.0; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Retro-auricular robotic neck dissection achieves an oncological yield, quality-of-life and shoulder function outcome equivalent to open neck dissection, with a markedly superior cosmetic result, and merits consideration in appropriately selected patients with oral cavity cancer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: