Transoral Robotic Surgery ( <scp>TORS</scp> ) Versus Open Surgery for Recurrent Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Salvage surgery (SS) is one of the best treatment options for recurrent oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) after prior definitive radiation. METHODS: A Medline literature search of articles on open (OSS) and transoral robotic surgery (TORS) for the treatment of recurrent OPSCC was performed. Surgical, functional, and oncological outcomes were analyzed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies including 567 (66.2%) patients undergoing OSS and 290 (33.8%) undergoing TORS were included. Patients undergoing TORS vs. OSS had early T- and N-classification tumors, p < 0.01, respectively. OSS patients had higher rates of feeding tube and tracheostomy dependence compared with TORS (p < 0.01). The mean 2-year overall survival in patients undergoing TORS was 68.5% versus 45.9% in the OSS group, p = 0.03. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing TORS had smaller tumors and less advanced nodal disease. Furthermore, they developed less postoperative feeding tube and tracheostomy dependency, and had better 2-year overall survival than patients undergoing OSS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".