Practical considerations for choosing transoral laser microsurgery versus transoral robotic surgery for supraglottic laryngeal cancers.

Carlos M Chiesa-Estomba, Stéphane Hans, Jerome R Lechien

Journal: Current opinion in otolaryngology & head and neck surgery 2025;33(2):92-101

PMID: 39903652

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the pros and cons of treating supraglottic laryngeal cancer with transoral laser microsurgery (TOLM) or transoral robotic surgery (TORS).

RECENT FINDINGS

The use of TORS is limited by the cost and the availability of the robots despite a faster learning curve than TOLM. The laryngeal exposure difficulty, the use of long instruments, and the restricted view of the surgical field consist of the primary limitations of TOLM, which are addressed in TORS technology through a 30° view of surgical fields, and the 180° amplitude of the instruments. The indications of TOLM and TORS are similar and include cT1-T2 and some selected cT3 with moderate invasion of the preepiglottic space. The rates of positive margins in TORS-SGL are lower than those of TOLM-supraglottic laryngectomy (SGL), while both approaches report similar duration of hospital stays. Patients treated with TORS report higher rates of percutaneous gastrostomy and temporary tracheotomy compared to TOLM. The feeding tube and oral diet re-start appear comparable between both groups. The overall survival, disease-free survival, local, regional, and relapse-free survival rates of TORS are reported to be higher than those found for TOLM SGL.

SUMMARY

TORS and TOLM SGL are well tolerated and effective approaches for cT1, cT2, and some selected cT3 LSCC. The functional and surgical outcomes appear comparable. TORS could have superior survival and loco-regional outcomes than TOLM, which could be attributed to the fastest TORS learning curve, and its superiority in terms of tumor/operating field visualization, and instrument movements.

Address: Research and Robotic Study Groups of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.; Department of Surgery, Mons School of Medicine, UMONS Research Institute for Health Sciences and Technology, University of Mons (UMons), Mons.; Division of Laryngology & Broncho-esophagology, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, EpiCURA Hospital, University of Mons, Baudour, Belgium.; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Polyclinic de l'Atlantique, Poitiers.; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, Paris Saclay University, Paris, France.; Research and Robotic Study Groups of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.; Department of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Donostia University Hospital Donosti-San, Sebastián, Spain.; Research and Robotic Study Groups of Young-Otolaryngologists of the International Federations of Oto-rhino-laryngological Societies (YO-IFOS), Paris, France.; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Foch Hospital, Paris Saclay University, Paris, France.

DOI: 10.1097/MOO.0000000000001028

Link outs

Free resources

Miscellaneous:

https://assays.cancer.gov/non-CPTAC-2705

Research Materials:

https://antibodies.cancer.gov/detail/CPTC-BRIP1-5

Subscription / membership required

Full Text Sources:

MeSH Terms: Humans, Laryngeal Neoplasms, Robotic Surgical Procedures, Microsurgery, Laser Therapy, Laryngectomy, Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery