Take a look at the Recent articles

Abstract

In head and neck cancers, regional spreading occurs via lymphatic pathways. Therefore, neck dissection is frequently performed in these patients; however, this results in a large incision scar in the neck. Retroauricular robotic surgical approach may be used for neck dissection as a remote-access method. This review presents a discussion of publications on retroauricular robotic neck dissection.

Key words

robot, surgery, retroauricular, head, neck, cancer

Introduction

Most cancerous lesions in the neck require surgical treatment. However, traditional surgery of the neck leaves a large scar, which results in cosmetic dissatisfaction, especially in young and female patients [1]. Hypertrophic scarring or keloids formed in the incision area can be a source of dissatisfaction. Thus, over the last two to three decades remote access methods have been widely adopted for such surgeries [2,3]. First, endoscopic methods were applied. However, endoscopes are difficult to use because of their two-dimensional imaging capabilities and the anatomical features of the neck. The Vinci surgical system (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA) was subsequently used in head and neck surgery [2].

Robot-assisted methods have been widely adopted in head and neck surgery, especially for thyroidectomy. Transaxillary, retroauricular, and transoral thyroidectomy are now increasingly being performed using robot-assisted methods. In 2012, Kim, et al. [4] performed selective neck dissection (levels I, II, and III) with a modified facelift incision in patients with parotid gland tumors. Kim, et al. [5] later described robotic retroauricular neck dissection (RRAND) in patients with submandibular tumors.

Preoperative evaluation

2021 Copyright OAT. All rights reserv

Patient selection is important in RRAND as it has been practiced in recent years, but there is currently no consensus on the indications or contraindications. Inappropriate patient selection can lead to unexpected results.

RRAND requires consensus in planning regarding general anesthesia, appropriate patient selection, hypertrophic scarring and keloids, and cosmetic expectations. Contraindications include patients who have previously undergone radiotherapy and surgery, a requirement for bilateral neck dissection, and distant metastases [1,2].

The physical characteristics of the patient can affect the RRAND procedure. For example, the duration of the operation is prolonged in patients with a long or thick neck and in those who are overweight. However, these features are not absolute contraindications. The age and comorbidities of the patient are also important for patient selection, as RRAND is a long operation compared with conventional methods [1].

The applications related to lymph node dissemination and tumor spread varied widely in previous reports. Park, et al. [6] did not perform RRAND in patients with pathological lymph nodes, while in a separate report Park, et al. [7] performed RRAND only on N0 and N1 necks. Kim, et al. [8] did not consider extracapsular spread in the lymph nodes as a definite contraindication. In the spread of the primary tumor, many authors did not find it appropriate to use RRAND for advanced stage tumors. However, Kim, et al. [8] reported that the procedure was appropriate except in unrespectable tumors. The same authors also did not accept prior radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma as a contraindication. In addition, it is widely accepted that RRAND should be avoided in cases requiring removal of the primary tumor by neck incision, mandibulotomy patients, and in patients < 18 years old [7].

The application of RRAND has been reported in patients with differentiated thyroid cancers [8-11] laryngopharyngeal cancers [6-8], salivary gland tumors [8,11-13] oral cavity cancers [8,14-16] and nasopharyngeal carcinomas [12]. In these patients, neck dissection is planned according to the primary tumor. RRAND can be performed in all unilateral neck dissection types other than radical neck dissection.

Surgical procedure

The operation is performed under general anesthesia, with the patient in the supine position and the head rotated to the contralateral side. The neck is positioned in a relaxed and non-extended position [1].

The postauricular incision extends from the lower border of the retroauricular sulcus to the middle of the sulcus. It is slightly angulated and extended toward the hairline. The skin flap is elevated to lie on the subplatysmal plane and above the sternocleidomastoid muscle. The flap is expanded to the inferior border of the mandible in the superior direction, to the omohyoid muscle in the inferior direction, and to middle of the neck in the anterior direction [14]. The marginal branch of the facial nerve is identified and protected. The distal facial artery and vein are cauterized. After identification of the spinal accessory nerve with direct vision, the robotic arms and 30° endoscope are inserted. Level I dissection is performed laterally to medially. The posterior belly of the digastric muscle is identified. The submandibular gland is reached. Then, according to the planned surgery, the dissection is continued in the superior to inferior direction. Finally, bleeding control and irrigation are performed, and the operation is terminated by placing a suction drain behind the hairline [14-16].

Postoperative care and follow-up are the same as in the conventional method. The neck is followed up with regard to hemorrhage, hematoma, infection, and color change. The drain is removed when the hemorrhage drops below 20 ml/day. The patient is discharged at the discretion of the surgeon, and the hospitalization period generally does not exceed 1 week [1].

Potential complications include wound infection, hematoma, hemorrhage, seroma, chylous leakage, flap necrosis, and nerve injury (great auricular nerve, marginal branch of the facial nerve, spinal accessory nerve, lingual nerve, hypoglossal nerve, phrenic nerve, and sympathetic nerves) [13].

In all studies published to date, patients were satisfied with the cosmetic results. No intraoperative complications were reported in any study. The most frequently reported postoperative complication is temporary paralysis of the marginal mandibular branch. Kim, et al. [12] compared RRAND with conventional neck surgery and reported that the duration of the operation was longer in RRAND. Bleeding, duration of drainage, amount of drainage, and duration of hospitalization did not differ between the two procedure types. Koh, et al. [13] and Lee, et al. [14] reported similar results. In addition, Lira, et al. [15] reported no difference in the number of lymph nodes removed between RRAND and conventional neck dissection.

The advantages of RRAND are cosmetic satisfaction, imaging advantages (three-dimensional imaging), a lack of tremors, and manipulation in a small work area.

Its disadvantages include a high cost, lack of tactile feedback, applicability to only select patients, long operation time, and the requirement for surgical experience with the technique.

RRAND has no medical drawbacks compared to conventional neck dissection, with the exception of its long operation time. This method is especially feasible in patients with high cosmetic expectations. However, there have been no long-term, multi-case, controlled studies in terms of tumor recurrence rates associated with this procedure.

Funding

I declare that I have no source of support.

References

1. Byeon HK, Koh YW (2015) The new era of robotic neck surgery: The universal application of the retroauricular approach. J Surg Oncol 112: 707-716. [Crossref]
2. Zhou S, Zhang C, Li D (2016) Approaches of robot-assisted neck dissection for head and neck cancer: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 121: 353-359. [Crossref]
3. Dutta S, Slater B, Butler M (2008) Stealth surgery, Transaxillary subcutaneous endoscopic excision of benign neck lesions. J Pediatr Surg 43: 2070-2074.
4. Kim CH, Chang JW, Choi EC, Shin YS, Koh YW (2013) Robotically assisted selective neck dissection in parotid gland cancer: preliminary report. Laryngoscope 123: 646-650.
5. Kim CH, Koh YW, Kim D, Chang JW, Choi EC, et al. (2013) Robotic-assisted neck dissection in submandibular gland cancer: preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71: 1450-1457.
6. Park YM, Holsinger FC, Kim WS, Park SC, Lee EJ, et al. (2013) Robot-assisted selective neck dissection of levels II to V via a modified facelift or retroauricular approach. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 148: 778-785. [Crossref]
7. Park YM, Lee WJ, Yun IS, Lee DW, Lew DH, et al. (2013) Free flap reconstruction after robot-assisted neck dissection via a modified face-lift or retroauricular approach. Ann Surg Oncol 20: 891-898. [Crossref]
8. Kim WS, Byeon HK, Park YM, Ha JG, Kim ES, et al. (2015) Therapeutic robot-assisted neck dissection via a retroauricular or modified facelift approach in head and neck cancer: A comparative study with conventional transcervical neck dissection. Head Neck 37: 249-254.
9. Byeon HK, Ban MJ, Lee JM, Ha JG, Kim ES, et al. (2012) Robot-Assisted Sistrunk’s Operation, Total Thyroidectomy, and Neck Dissection via a Transaxillary and Retroauricular (TARA) Approach in Papillary Carcinoma Arising in Thyroglossal Duct Cyst and Thyroid Gland. Ann Surg Oncol 19: 4259–4261.
10. Byeon HK, Holsinger FC, Tufano RP, Chung HJ, Kim WS, et al. (2014) Robotic Total Thyroidectomy with Modified Radical Neck Dissection via Unilateral Retroauricular Approach. Ann Surg Oncol 21: 3872-3875.
11. Lira RB, Chulam TC, Kowalski LP (2017) Safe implementation of retroauricular robotic and endoscopic neck surgery in South America. Gland Surg 6: 258-266. [Crossref]
12. Kim CH, Koh YW, Kim D, Chang JW, Choi EC, et al. (2013) Robotic-assisted neck dissection in submandibular gland cancer: preliminary report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 71: 1450-1457. [Crossref]
13. Koh YW, Choi EC (2014) Robotic approaches to the neck. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 47: 433-454. [Crossref]
14. Kim WS, Lee HS, Kang SM, Hong HJ, Koh YW, et al. (2012) Feasibility of Robot-Assisted Neck Dissections via a Transaxillary and Retroauricular (‘‘TARA’’) Approach in Head and Neck Cancer: Preliminary Results. Ann Surg Oncol 19: 1009-1017.
15. Lee HS, Kim WS, Hong HJ (2012) Robot-assisted Supraomohyoid neck dissection via a modified face-lift or retroauricular approach in early-stage cN0 squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity: a comparative study with conventional technique. Ann Surg Oncol 19: 3871-3878.
16. Lira RB, Chulam TC, de Carvalho GB, Schreuder WH, Koh YW, et al. (2017) Retroauricular endoscopic and robotic versus conventional neck dissection for oral cancer. J Robotic Surg.