A Comparison of Transoral Versus Transcervical Surgical Approaches to Retropharyngeal Lymphadenectomy: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: A gap in knowledge exists concerning the functional outcomes and complications when comparing various surgical approaches for retropharyngeal lymph node (RPLN) metastases. OBJECTIVE: To explore perioperative outcomes, functional outcomes, and complications associated in the treatment of RPLN metastases. DESIGN: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) protocol was used to conduct a scoping review of the PubMed and Scopus databases. REVIEW METHODS: We systematically searched 2 databases from inception to January 2023 for articles examining the treatment approaches and postoperative outcomes in the retropharyngeal space. We included English records about surgical approaches, complications, functional outcomes for patients >18 years old with retropharyngeal lymphadenopathy. RESULTS: One-hundred ninety-nine articles were identified, of which 17 were included in the analysis. Three studies assessed RPLN dissection in the postradiation setting. We identified limited knowledge about functional outcomes and complications following surgery for retropharyngeal lymphadenopathy. Overall, acute postoperative dysphagia was documented in 35/170 patients (20.5%). However, the assessment of dysphagia was limited, and not described in the majority of studies. The overall rate of postoperative neuropathy and hematoma were 4.1% and 4.7%, respectively. No postoperative hematomas were documented in the transcervical approach. CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the need for further research on postoperative outcomes following RPLN dissection. We recommend further studies focusing on objective swallow assessments and long-term outcomes of either surgical approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".