Robotic versus conventional neck dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the perioperative outcomes of robotic versus conventional neck dissection in patients with head and neck malignancy. METHODS: An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases was conducted. We included studies with direct comparisons of robotic and open neck dissections and performed dual, independent data extraction for primary outcomes of nodal yield, recurrence rate, subjective cosmetic assessment, operative time, length of stay, and rates of perioperative complications. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to determine the standardized mean difference (SMD), absolute risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Eleven comparative studies comprising 225 robotic and 430 open neck dissections met the final selection criteria. All studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Robotic surgery improved cosmesis (SMD 1.15, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56) but also increased operative time (SMD 1.94, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.63). Total nodal yield, pathological nodal yield, recurrence rate, rates of perioperative complications, and length of stay were not significantly different between the two groups, and the 95% CIs suggested that false negative results were unlikely. The results remained consistent after stratification by pathology and robotic technique. CONCLUSION: Although robotic neck dissection may offer similar perioperative outcomes compared to conventional neck dissection, it requires significantly more operative time. Whereas cosmesis was found to be superior among the robotic cohort, this must be viewed cautiously given the nonvalidated measurement tool that was used and the inherent reporting bias associated with it. Laryngoscope, 129:1587-1596, 2019.

Endoscopic Sinus Surgery Improves Sleep Quality in Chronic Rhinosinusitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objective Up to 75% of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) suffer with poor sleep quality and reduced quality of life. Endoscopic sinus surgery has demonstrated encouraging results in improving sleep function. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the change in sleep quality after surgery for CRS. Data Sources PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE. Review Methods An electronic search was conducted with the keywords "sinusitis" or "rhinosinusitis" and "sleep." Studies were included only when adults underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and were evaluated pre- and postoperatively by the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), the Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), the sleep domain of Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22, or the sleep domain of Rhinosinusitis Disability Index. Results The database search yielded 1939 studies, of which 7 remained after dual-investigator screening. The standardized mean differences (95% CI) for the ESS, PSQI, and AHI were -0.94 (-1.63 to -0.26), -0.80 (-1.46 to -0.14), and -0.20 (-0.32 to -0.07), indicating large, moderate to large, and small improvements, respectively. All analyses displayed high heterogeneity ( I2 = 95%-99%). Conclusion Sleep quality, as measured by the ESS and PSQI surveys, shows substantial improvement after surgery for CRS, with smaller improvement seen for AHI. Generalizability of our results is limited by high heterogeneity among studies and by broad confidence intervals that cannot exclude small to trivial changes. The findings of this meta-analysis provide insight into the effect of CRS-related endoscopic sinus surgery on sleep quality, which should guide future research direction and counseling of patients in the clinical setting.

Mandibular osteotomies and distraction osteogenesis: evolution and current advances.

IMPORTANCE: Although a number of mandibular and occlusal problems may be addressed by orthodontic treatment alone, dentofacial osteotomies are often needed to achieve desired functional or cosmetic results. With the increased popularity of mandibular distraction osteogenesis in recent years, the role of the facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon is crucial in the multidisciplinary care of patients with such problems. OBJECTIVE: To review the history and evolution of mandibular osteotomies and distraction osteogenesis and to discuss indications, advantages, disadvantages, and recent advances of these techniques. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Medline and PubMed searches without date limits, confined to publications in English, German, and French languages were used to search for terms mandibular advancement, mandibular osteotomy, orthognathic surgery, mandibular distraction osteogenesis, prognathism, and retrognathism in the respective languages. References not found on the sources noted were found in print form in the New York Medical College Library when needed. Particular techniques, as originally described or relating to mandibular osteotomies and mandibular distraction osteogenesis, were critically reviewed. FINDINGS: The goal of surgical mandibular modification procedures is to correct a variety of craniofacial abnormalities for both functional and aesthetic purposes. Multiple techniques of both mandibular osteotomy and distraction osteogenesis have been shown to be effective. Their effectiveness and utility is primarily determined by the specific craniofacial defect and desired outcome, as well as surgeon preference and patient compliance. CONCLUSIONS: While mandibular osteotomy has evolved tremendously, distraction osteogenesis continues to grow as a leading method of surgical correction for a variety of craniofacial defects. Current research shows significant strides in making distraction more effective and efficient to use for both the surgeon and the patient. With the growing popularity of these procedures, the up-to-date knowledge of the facial plastic and reconstructive surgeon in these advances is of utmost importance.