Transoral robotic surgery for pediatric upper airway pathology: An institutional update

Cameron P. Worden,Andrew C. Prince,Samuel N. Kirse,Christopher Rutter,Benjamin H. Shields,Trevor G. Hackman,Wendell G. Yarbrough,Adam M. Zanation,Carlton J. Zdanski
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2024.112073
IF: 1.626
2024-08-19
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology
Abstract:Objective Provide an update on our institution's experience with utilizing transoral robotic surgery (TORS) in pediatric airway surgery and compare these results to surgery by traditional methods. Methods Pediatric patients who underwent TORS for treatment of upper airway pathology between 2010 and 2021 at our institution were retrospectively identified and compared to patients with the same or similar pathology who underwent a traditional (open or endoscopic) surgical approach over the same time period. Outcomes of interest included patient demographics, operative times, adverse events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and modified barium swallow (MBSS) results. Results Forty children (19M, 21F) underwent 46 TORS procedures. Mean age was 6.4 years (range: 6 days-17 years). Most commonly treated pathology included: laryngeal clefts (LC) (n = 18), lymphatic malformations (n = 9), and base of tongue masses (n = 7). Surgical time was decreased in traditional type I LC repairs (mean: 111 vs 149 min, P = 0.04) and lymphatic malformation excisions (59 vs 120 min, p = 0.005). Hospital LOS was increased in TORS type I LC repairs (2.6 vs 1.2 days, P = 0.04). Adverse event rate was similar between TORS and traditional cohorts (17 % vs 16 % cases, P = 0.9). Postoperative MBSS results were improved for TORS type I LC repairs at 6 months (70 % vs 33 %, P = 0.09) and 12 months (82 % vs 43 %, P = 0.05). Conclusions Pediatric TORS is practical and safe and has comparable outcomes to traditional surgery. Robotic-assisted LC repair displayed improved postoperative swallow results versus traditional approaches and may be particularly useful in recurrent cases. Level of evidence 3.
pediatrics,otorhinolaryngology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?