Transoral robotic surgery: a review of clinical and cost-effectiveness

CADTH
Record ID 32016000143
English
Authors' recomendations: The evidence addressing the clinical effectiveness of TORS in the management of early stage oral and oropharyngeal cancer is of limited quality. Health technology assessments (HTA) and systematic reviews included in the report were limited to studies with case-series design. Registry studies show that compared to open or non-robotic approaches, TORS confers no mortality benefit but reduces the duration of hospitalization. The benefits of TORS on the reduction in the need for gastrostomy and tracheostomy tubes and post-operative dysphagia are conflicting. There does not appear to be a reduction in bleeding complications associated with TORS. No evidence regarding the clinical or cost effectiveness of TORS in the management of OSA was identified. No studies addressing the cost-effectiveness of TORS in the management of early stage oral and oropharyngeal cancer were identified. Compared to conventional surgical approaches, evidence from non-randomized studies is conflicting as to whether TORS offers cost savings. An activity-based cost calculation found that the total cost of TORS was more than conventional surgery, however the cost differences were attributed to initial purchase costs as well as ongoing training and equipment maintenance.
Details
Project Status: Completed
Year Published: 2015
English language abstract: An English language summary is available
Publication Type: Not Assigned
Country: Canada
MeSH Terms
  • Mouth Neoplasms
  • Oropharyngeal Neoplasms
  • Pharyngeal Neoplasms
  • Robotics
  • Sleep Apnea Syndromes
Contact
Organisation Name: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Contact Address: 600-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON K1S 5S8 Canada. Tel: +1 613 226 2553; Fax: +1 613 226 5392;
Contact Name: publications@cadth.ca
Contact Email: publications@cadth.ca
Copyright: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.