Development of a head and neck lymphoedema specific quality of life tool: The Comprehensive Assessment of Lymphoedema Impact in the Head and Neck.

PURPOSE: To develop a head and neck lymphoedema (HNL) specific quality of life (QoL) instrument to assess physical, functional, and social/emotional impacts of HNL. METHODS: Instrument candidate items were reviewed by patients with HNL and clinicians and rated for importance, clarity, and invasiveness. The Content Validity Ratio was applied for item reduction. Three-step cognitive interviews were conducted with HNL patients to validate the items, survey format, and instructions. RESULTS: Initially, 130 candidate questions were developed. Following item reduction, 52 items progressed to three-step cognitive interviews. Following cognitive interviews, the Comprehensive Assessment of Lymphoedema Impact in Head and Neck (CALI-HaN) included 33 items; 1 global, 10 physical, 7 functional, and 15 emotional. CONCLUSIONS: Physical, functional, and socioemotional effects need to be considered when measuring QoL in patients with HNL. This study describes initial development of the CALI-HaN, an instrument that shows promise for clinical and research applications following future validation.

Head and neck lymphedema and quality of life: the patient perspective.

PURPOSE: Head and neck lymphedema (HNL) is common after head and neck cancer (HNC). This study aimed to explore quality of life (QoL) in patients with HNL to guide the development of a patient-reported QoL measure. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 HNC survivors with HNL. Interviews explored participants' experiences of living with HNL. Analysis of interview transcripts drew on qualitative content analysis to ensure themes were grounded in patient experience. RESULTS: Two main themes were established: "I want to live my life" and "It was like things were short-circuited." These themes encompassed the substantial disruption patients attributed to the HNL and their desire to normalize life. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the impact of HNL on individual patients may be critical to optimizing treatment strategies to improve the physical burden of HNL and QoL. This study provides the framework for developing a patient-reported HNL QoL measure. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The development of an HNL-specific QoL measure, grounded in the patient perspective, may provide cancer care teams with a tool to better understand HNL's impact on each patient to tailor patient-centered care and optimize QoL outcomes.

Head and Neck Virtual Coach: A Randomized Control Trial of Mobile Health as an Adjunct to Swallowing Therapy During Head and Neck Radiation.

Dysphagia is a common consequence of head and neck radiation and may be mitigated by performance of swallowing exercises during radiation treatment. Given historically poor adherence to such exercise protocols, we created a mobile health application, HNC Virtual Coach as an adjunct to standard clinical care. This randomized control trial investigated the impact of HNC Virtual Coach on adherence as well as swallowing outcomes by comparing those using the mobile app to those receiving only standard clinical care and paper logs. Both treatment groups were provided with the same exercise protocol as well as the same baseline educational information. Outcome measures included adherence rates, physiologic measures obtained during a Modified Barium Swallow Study (PAS, MBS-ImP, DIGEST), patient-reported outcomes (MDADI), diet levels (FOIS, PSS-HN), and quality of information received (INFO-25). Patients using the HNC Virtual Coach tended to have better adherence to treatment recommendations during radiation therapy. Increased adherence was associated with better patient-reported quality of life, but not physiologic function 2-3 months following completion of radiation. Results suggest that a mobile health application may provide benefit for some patients undergoing head and neck radiation.

Practice patterns in transoral robotic surgery: results of an American head and neck society survey.

To understand perioperative practices for transoral robotic surgery (TORS) among academic medical centers. An electronic cross-sectional survey was distributed to fellows and program directors participating in 49 American Head and Neck Society fellowships. Operative decisions, medical and swallowing management, and disposition planning were assessed. Thirty-eight responses were collected (77.6%). Twenty-three centers (60.5%) performed > 25 cases annually with the remainder performing fewer. The da Vinci Si was the most commonly used platform (n = 28, 73.7%). A majority of institutions advocated tailored resection to adequate margins (n = 27, 71.1%) over fixed subunit-based resection (n = 11, 28.9%). Most surgeons (n = 29, 76.3%) performed neck dissection concurrent with TORS, and 89.5% (n = 34) routinely ligated external carotid artery branches. A minority of institutions (n = 17, 45.9%) endorsed a standardized TORS care pathway. Antibiotic choices and duration varied, the most common choice being ampicillin/sulbactam (n = 21, 55.3%), and the most common duration being 24 h or less (n = 22, 57.9%). Multimodal analgesia was used at 36 centers (94.7%), steroids at 31 centers (81.6%), and pharmacologic venous thromboembolic prophylaxis at 29 centers (76.3%). Nasogastric feeding tubes were placed during surgery at 20 institutions (54.1%). Speech-language pathologists routinely performed postoperative swallow evaluations at 29 (78.4%) sites. Practice patterns are variable among institutions performing TORS. While certain surgical and postoperative practices were quite common, many institutions reported no standard TORS care pathway. Further understanding of the impact of individual practices on outcomes is necessary to develop evidence-based perioperative protocols for TORS.

Transoral Robotic Surgery for Recurrent Tumors of the Upper Aerodigestive Tract (RECUT): An International Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Transoral robotic surgery (TORS) is an emerging minimally invasive surgical treatment for residual, recurrent, and new primary head and neck cancers in previously irradiated fields, with limited evidence for its oncological effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive cases performed in 16 high-volume international centers before August 2018 was conducted (registered at clinicaltrials.gov [NCT04673929] as the RECUT study). Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival, disease-specific survivals (DSS), and local control (LC) were calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, with subgroups compared using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modeling for multivariable analysis. Maximally selected rank statistics determined the cut point for closest surgical resection margin based on LC. RESULTS: Data for 278 eligible patients were analyzed, with median follow-up of 38.5 months. Two-year and 5-year outcomes were 69.0% and 62.2% for LC, 71.8% and 49.8% for OS, 47.2% and 35.7% for disease-free survival, and 78.7% and 59.1% for disease-specific survivals. The most discriminating margin cut point was 1.0 mm; the 2-year LC was 80.9% above and 54.2% below or equal to 1.0 mm. Increasing age, current smoking, primary tumor classification, and narrow surgical margins (≤1.0 mm) were statistically significantly associated with lower OS. Hemorrhage with return to theater was seen in 8.1% (n = 22 of 272), and 30-day mortality was 1.8% (n = 5 of 272). At 1 year, 10.8% (n = 21 of 195) used tracheostomies, 33.8% (n = 66 of 195) used gastrostomies, and 66.3% (n = 53 of 80) had maintained or improved normalcy of diet scores. CONCLUSIONS: Data from international centers show TORS to treat head and neck cancers in previously irradiated fields yields favorable outcomes for LC and survival. Where feasible, TORS should be considered the preferred surgical treatment in the salvage setting.

Timing of postoperative oral feeding after head and neck mucosal free flap reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: Fistula remains a common complication of upper aerodigestive tract reconstruction. Optimal timing of oral feeding is unknown and the impact of early feeding on swallow function and fistula rates remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to better understand the effects of "early feeding" on fistula rate and swallow in patients with free flap reconstruction of upper aerodigestive tract defects. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. One hundred and four patients undergoing free flap reconstruction of mucosalized head and neck defects. Two groups, early feeding (oral intake on or before postoperative day 5) and late-feeding (oral intake after postoperative day 5). Primary outcome was incidence of salivary fistula. Secondary outcomes included Functional Oral Intake Scale scores. RESULTS: Fistula rate was 16.5% in late-feeding group and 0% in early-feeding group (P = .035). Patients who were fed early had an association with progression to a full oral diet by 30 days (P = .027). DISCUSSION: This cohort analysis suggests that in properly selected patients with free flap reconstruction for mucosal defects, early feeding may not increase risk of salivary fistula and may improve swallow functional outcomes earlier. Level of Evidence: 3.

Adaptation and Validation of the Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity for Flexible Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing: DIGEST-FEES.

Purpose While flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES) is a common clinical procedure used in the head and neck cancer (HNC) population, extant outcome measures for FEES such as bolus-level penetration-aspiration and residue scores are not well suited as global patient-level endpoint measures of dysphagia severity in cooperative group trials or clinical outcomes research. The Dynamic Imaging Grade of Swallowing Toxicity (DIGEST) was initially developed and validated for use during videofluoroscopic evaluations as a way to grade safety, efficiency, and overall pharyngeal swallowing impairment. The purpose of this study was to adapt and validate DIGEST for use with FEES. Method A modified Delphi exercise was conducted for content validation, expert consensus, adaptation, and operationalization of DIGEST-FEES. Three blinded, expert raters then evaluated 100 de-identified post-HNC treatment FEES examinations. Intra- and interrater reliability were tested with quadratic weighted kappa. Criterion validity against the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory, Functional Oral Intake Scale, Secretion Severity Scale, and Yale Residue Rating Scale was assessed with Spearman correlation coefficients. Results Interrater reliability was almost perfect for overall DIGEST-FEES grade (κw = 0.83) and safety grade (κw = 0.86) and substantial for efficiency grade (κw = 0.74). Intrarater reliability was excellent for all raters (0.9-0.91). Overall DIGEST-FEES grade correlated with MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (r = -.43, p < .0001), Functional Oral Intake Scale (r = -.43, p < .0001), Secretion Severity Scale (r = .47, p < .0001), Yale Vallecular Residue (r = .73, p < .0001), and Yale Pyriform Sinus Residue (r = .65, p < .0001). Conclusion DIGEST-FEES is a valid and reliable scale to describe the severity of pharyngeal dysphagia in patients with HNC. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14642787.

Development and reliability of the revised Patterson Edema Scale.

OBJECTIVE: The Patterson Edema scale was developed in 2007 to address the lack of a reliable, sensitive scale to measure laryngeal and pharyngeal oedema in patients with head and neck cancer. The objective of this study was to revise the existing Patterson scale to improve its reliability and utility. DESIGN: Prospective investigation. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Speech-Language Pathologists, Otolaryngologists, and Radiation Oncologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Ratings using the Revised Patterson Edema Scale. METHODS: A consensus group reviewed existing literature regarding the performance of the original Patterson scale and revised the existing scale in regard to items to be included and descriptors for each severity level. The scale was then utilised by 18 speech language pathologists from the US and UK with >2 years-experience working with dysphagia and dysphonia with endoscopy. Each SLP rated a total of eight parameters (epiglottis, vallecula, pharyngoepiglottic folds, aryepiglottic folds, arytenoids, false vocal folds, true vocal folds and pyriform sinuses) using the Revised Patterson Edema Scale. Feedback was solicited from raters regarding areas where clarity was lacking for further scale revision. Scale revisions were completed and additional ratings were completed by otolaryngologists, radiation oncologists and less experienced SLP providers to establish reliability across disciplines. Quadratic weighted Kappa values were obtained to establish interrater reliability. RESULTS: Feedback received from raters included suggestions for clarification of how to rate unilateral oedema, use of a standard task battery to visualise and rate structures consistently, and clarification of true vocal fold oedema rating parameters. Overall interrater reliability was established using quadratic weighted Kappa with good agreement noted for the epiglottis, vallecula, arytenoids and false vocal folds; moderate agreement noted for aryepiglottic folds, pharyngoepiglottic folds and pyriform sinuses; and fair agreement noted for true vocal folds. CONCLUSIONS: The Revised Patterson Edema Scale demonstrates moderate-substantial interrater reliability for most parameters across multiple disciplines and experience levels, with the exception of the true vocal folds where agreement was fair. We believe the Revised Patterson Oedema Scale provides a reliable tool for clinicians and researchers to rate oedema in the supraglottic larynx and pharynx following treatment for head and neck cancer.

Patient Reported Outcomes and Objective Swallowing Assessments in a Multidisciplinary Dysphagia Clinic.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Dysphagia encompasses a complex compilation of symptoms which often differ from findings of objective swallowing evaluations. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the results of subjective dysphagia measures to objective measures of swallowing in patients evaluated in a multidisciplinary dysphagia clinic. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. METHODS: The study cohort included all patients evaluated in the multidisciplinary dysphagia clinic over 24 months. Participants were evaluated by a multidisciplinary team including a laryngologist, gastroenterologist, and speech-language pathologist. Evaluation included a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS), fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE). Data collected included diet (FOIS), Eating Assessment Tool (EAT-10) score, Reflux symptom index (RSI) score, and the findings of the VFSS exam. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included in the analysis. The average EAT-10 score was 16.3 ± 2.1, RSI was 21.4 ± 0.6, and FOIS score was 6.0 ± 1.33. VFSS revealed impairments in the oral phase in 40% of the cohort, pharyngeal in 59%, and esophageal in 49%. Abnormalities were noted in one phase for 32%, in 2 phases in 32%, and three phases in 18%. Patients with abnormal pharyngeal findings on VFSS had significantly higher EAT-10 scores (P = .04). Patients with abnormal oral findings on VFSS were noted to have significantly lower FOIS scores (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Data presented here demonstrate a relationship between patient reported symptoms and objective VFSS findings in a cohort of patients referred for multidisciplinary swallowing assessment suggesting such surveys are helpful screening tools but inadequate to fully characterize swallowing impairment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 131:1088-1094, 2021.

Swallowing and Communication Management of Tracheostomy and Laryngectomy in the Context of COVID-19: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The care of patients with a surgically modified airway, such as tracheostomy or laryngectomy, represents a challenge for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The objective was to review available publications and practice guidelines on management of tracheostomy and laryngectomy in the context of COVID-19. This study performed a review and synthesis of information available in the PubMed database and from national SLP organizations across 6 countries. OBSERVATIONS: From the search, 22 publications on tracheostomy and 3 referring to laryngectomy were identified. After analysis of titles and abstracts followed by full-text review, 4 publications were identified as presenting guidelines for specific approaches to tracheostomy and were selected; all 3 publications on laryngectomy were selected. The main guidelines on tracheostomy described considerations during management (eg, cuff manipulation, suctioning, valve placement) owing to the increased risk of aerosol generation and transmission during swallowing and communication interventions in this population. Regarding laryngectomy, the guidelines focused on the care and protection of both the professional and the patient, offering recommendations on the management of adverse events and leakage of the tracheoesophageal prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Frequent guideline updates for SLPs are necessary to inform best practice and ensure patient and health care worker protection and safety while providing high-quality care and rehabilitation.

Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Dysphagia in Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2: A Review of the Literature and International Guidelines.

Purpose Speech-language pathologists are playing a crucial role in the assessment and management of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Our goal was to synthesize peer-reviewed literature and association guidelines from around the world regarding dysphagia assessment and management for this specific population. Method A review of publications available in the PubMed database and official guidelines of international groups was performed on May 23, 2020. The information was synthesized and categorized into three content areas for swallowing: clinical evaluation, instrumental assessment, and rehabilitation. Results Five publications were identified in the PubMed database. Following title, abstract, and full-text review, only three publications met inclusion criteria: two reviews and one narrative report. Additionally, 19 international guidelines were reviewed. To assess swallowing, a modified clinical evaluation was recommended and only following a risk assessment. Instrumental assessments were often considered aerosol generating, especially transnasal procedures such as endoscopy and manometry. For this reason, many associations recommended that these examinations be performed only when essential and with appropriate personal protective equipment. Guidelines recommended that intervention should focus on compensatory strategies, including bolus modification, maneuvers/postural changes, and therapeutic exercises that can be conducted with physical distancing. Respiratory training devices were not recommended during rehabilitation. Conclusions International associations have provided extensive guidance regarding the level of risk related to the management of dysphagia in this population. To date, there are no scientific papers offering disease and/or recovery profiling for patients with dysphagia and coronavirus disease 2019. As a result, research in this area is urgently needed.

Building an integrated multidisciplinary swallowing disorder clinic: considerations, challenges, and opportunities.

Dysphagia is a complex condition with numerous causes, symptoms, and treatments. As such, patients with dysphagia commonly require a multidisciplinary approach to their evaluation and treatment. Integrated multidisciplinary clinics provide an optimal format for a collaborative approach to patient care. In this manuscript, we will discuss considerations for teams looking to build a multidisciplinary dysphagia clinic, including what professionals are typically involved, what patients benefit most from this approach, what tests are most appropriate for which symptoms, financial issues, and traversing interpersonal challenges.

Managing head and neck cancer patients with tracheostomy or laryngectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Head and neck cancer patients with tracheostomies and laryngectomies, as well as their healthcare providers, face unique challenges in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. This document consolidates best available evidence to date and presents recommendations to minimize the risks of aerosolization and SARS-CoV-2 exposures in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The cornerstones of these recommendations include the use of closed-circuit ventilation whenever possible, cuffed tracheostomy tubes, judicious use of heat moisture exchange units, appropriate personal protective equipment for providers and patients, meticulous hand hygiene, and minimal manipulation of tracheostomy tubes.

Management of dysphagia in the patient with head and neck cancer during COVID-19 pandemic: Practical strategy.

The global pandemic of 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has tremendously altered routine medical service provision and imposed unprecedented challenges to the health care system. This impacts patients with dysphagia complications caused by head and neck cancers. As this pandemic of COVID-19 may last longer than severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, a practical workflow for managing dysphagia is crucial to ensure a safe and efficient practice to patients and health care personnel. This document provides clinical practice guidelines based on available evidence to date to balance the risks of SARS-CoV-2 exposure with the risks associated with dysphagia. Critical considerations include reserving instrumental assessments for urgent cases only, optimizing the noninstrumental swallowing evaluation, appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and use of telehealth when appropriate. Despite significant limitations in clinical service provision during the pandemic of COVID-19, a safe and reasonable dysphagia care pathway can still be implemented with modifications of setup and application of newer technologies.

Effectiveness of a Home-based Head and Neck Lymphedema Management Program: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients with head and neck lymphedema receiving either a home-based lymphedema treatment program or a hybrid approach including both home-based treatment and regular clinical visits. METHODS: Outcomes were assessed in patients receiving head and neck lymphedema rehabilitation. Baseline measures of neck, submental, and facial edema were obtained and repeated following treatment. A home program was recommended for all patients, and those receiving hybrid care received the same recommendations as well as a visit with the lymphedema therapist for additional treatment. Their outcomes were compared using standard statistical analysis. RESULTS: Fifty consecutive individuals were included, 25 in each group. Adherence to at least 50% of recommended treatment was reported in 68% of those receiving home-based treatment and 84% of those receiving hybrid care. Significant improvement was demonstrated for 66% of patients. There was no statistically significant difference between treatment groups with regard to clinically significant improvement (P = .15). Patients receiving hybrid therapy demonstrated treatment advantages regarding facial edema (P = .037). Adherence to treatment was associated with clinical improvement (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: Comparable benefits were observed regardless of whether patients had a home-based or hybrid lymphedema treatment approach. These data suggest a home-based treatment approach may be appropriate for patients unable to participate in clinical sessions. However, for patients with significant facial edema, a hybrid approach may be preferable. Adherence was associated with better outcomes. Given these findings, future investigations should consider strategies to improve adherence to optimize the outcomes lymphedema treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b Laryngoscope, 2020.

A Next-Generation Single-Port Robotic Surgical System for Transoral Robotic Surgery: Results From Prospective Nonrandomized Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: Transoral endoscopic head and neck surgery now plays an important role in the multidisciplinary management of oropharyngeal carcinoma. Previous generations of robotic surgical systems used a multiport system with a rigid stereo-endoscope and 2 wristed instruments that facilitated transoral robotic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new single-port robotic surgical system in head and neck surgery prospectively through concurrent nonrandomized clinical trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two prospective clinical trials were conducted from December 16, 2016, to December 26, 2017, to assess the safety, feasibility, and performance of a flexible single-port robotic surgical system in 4 institutions, including 3 in the United States and 1 in Hong Kong. A total of 47 patients with tumors of the oropharynx were enrolled and underwent surgery. All patients were classified as having American Society of Anesthesiologists class I to III status and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0 to 1. An initial cohort of 7 patients underwent staging and endoscopic procedures for benign disease. The remaining 40 patients all had malignant tumors of the oropharynx. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Safety was measured by the incidence of device-related serious adverse events. Feasibility and performance were measured by the conversion rate from the use of the single-port robotic surgical system to either open surgery or the use of any other transoral technology required to complete the planned procedure. Secondary end points of swallowing function and surgical margins were also measured. RESULTS: All 47 patients (8 women and 39 men; mean [SD] age, 61 [8] years) safely underwent transoral resection with the single-port robotic surgical system without conversion to open surgery, laser surgery, or multiport robotic surgery. There were no intraoperative complications or device-related serious adverse events. Mean (SD) estimated intraoperative blood loss per procedure was 15.4 (23.9) mL; no patients received a transfusion. Two patients underwent a planned tracheotomy owing to medical comorbidity (previous chemoradiotherapy; obesity and severe sleep apnea). Two patients (4%) had grade III or IV postoperative hemorrhage, requiring a return to the operating room; however, both patients had medical comorbidities requiring the use of antithrombotic medication. The incidence of positive margins for patients with oropharyngeal malignancy was 3% (1 of 40). Within 30 days, 45 patients (96%) were eating by mouth and without the need for a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study describes the results of phase 2 clinical testing of a next-generation, robotic surgical system using a single-port architecture. The use of the device appears to be feasible, safe, and effective for transoral robotic surgery of oropharyngeal tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT03010813 and NCT03049280.

Implementation of a targeted HPV educational program in a population with HIV.

Patients living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) are at higher risk of developing human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated malignancies. This prospective, longitudinal study evaluated the baseline knowledge of PLWH regarding HPV infection and its association with head neck cancer, and it aimed to determine whether a focused educational session could promote both short- and long-term knowledge acquisition in this population. Twenty-seven subjects participated in an interactive educational session and completed pre-test and immediate and delayed (4-month) post-test questionnaires. When compared to their pre-test answers, subjects demonstrated significant improvements in all 28 questions immediately following education. Knowledge preservation was demonstrated 4 months after initial evaluation, with subjects performing significantly better than their pre-test scores in 24 of the original 28 questions. These results suggest that short, focused, educational programs for PLWH may promote a better understanding of HPV's association with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HPV risk factors, methods of transmission, and prevention.

Cost comparison of treatment for oropharyngeal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Based on current guidelines, surgical and nonsurgical therapies are viable frontline treatment for patients with locoregional oropharyngeal carcinoma (OPC). We sought to compare financial parameters between chemoradiation and transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in this patient population. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study. METHODS: In this study we identified patients with selected American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th Edition stage II to IVa OPC treated with TORS between January 2013 and December 2014. Fifteen patients who underwent TORS were stage matched with 15 patients treated with chemoradiation. Total charges and cost data for each patient were analyzed at 4-month and 1-year time points; functional and oncologic outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in functional and oncologic outcomes. Patients undergoing TORS had a longer inpatient hospital stay, and most required a nasogastric tube for an average of 3.5 days. There were no local or regional recurrences. Across all time points, the TORS group had lower charges and costs compared to the chemoradiation group, with 14% lower costs at 1 year. In the chemoradiation group, nearly two-thirds of costs came from radiation therapy and pharmacy expenses. Chemotherapy accounted for most pharmacy costs. The costs of operating the surgical robot accounted for a about half of surgical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with stage II to IVa oropharyngeal carcinoma treated with TORS may incur lower costs than those treated nonsurgically. With rising healthcare spending, the financial impact of treatment might be considered for those patients eligible for treatment regimens with comparable functional and oncologic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b Laryngoscope, 129:1604-1609, 2019.

Anterior cervical incision-sparing thyroidectomy: Comparing retroauricular and transoral approaches.

OBJECTIVES: The robotic retroauricular approach and transoral endoscopic thyroidectomy vestibular approach (TOETVA) have been employed to avoid anterior neck scarring in thyroidectomy with good success. However, outcomes have yet to be compared between techniques. We compare our initial clinical experience with these approaches for thyroid lobectomy at our institution. METHODS: A review of initial consecutive patients who underwent robotic facelift thyroidectomy (RFT) (August 2011-August 2016) at our institution was conducted. This was compared with the same number of initial consecutive patients who underwent TOETVA (September 2016-September 2017) at our institution. Demographics, operative time, pathology, complications, and learning curve were compared between cohorts. Learning curve was defined based on the slope of linear regression models of operative time versus case number. RESULTS: There were 20 patients in each cohort. There was no statistically significant difference in demographic data between cohorts. One hundred percent of RFT cases versus 95% TOETVA cases (P = .999) were completed without conversion to standard open technique with median operative times of 201 (124-293) minutes versus 188 (89-343) minutes with RFT and TOETVA, respectively (P = .36). There was no incidence of permanent recurrent laryngeal nerve injury in either cohort. The slopes of the regression models were 0.29 versus -8.32 (P = .005) for RFT and TOETVA, respectively. CONCLUSION: RFT and TOETVA are safe and feasible options for patients motivated to avoid an anterior neck scar. However, the quicker learning curve without the need for a costly robotic system may make TOETVA the preferred technique for institutions wishing to perform anterior cervical incision-sparing thyroidectomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.