Table 8.

Peri-operative outcomes reported for transoral robotic surgery (TOR) (DFS; disease-free survival)

Robotic Vs Conventional	Control procedure	Number of patients		Length of stay (Days)		Complications		Complication rate		DFS
		Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control
Li et al., [178]	Open	2224	6697	4.3	5.1
Chung et al., [54] (anterior partial glossectomy)	Open	68	3915	4.8	4	0	131	0.0%	3.3%
Chung et al., [54] (posterior pharyngectomy)	Open	641	1426	3.7	5.2	21	71	3.3%	5.0%
Chung et al., [54] (posterior partial glossectomy)	Open	147	747	3.54	5.06	14	37	9.5%	5.0%
Sano et al., [185]	Open	68	236
Ford et al., [157]	Open	65	65							89%	73%
White et al., [154]	Open	64	64	3.8	8	26	55	40.6%	85.9%	74%	43%
Lee et al., [151]	Open	27	30	14.6	24.6					95.70%	91.60%
Hammoudi et al., [158]	Open	26	26	11	19	1	2
		Total		Average		Total		Average complication rate		Average rate of DFS
		3330	13,206	6.53	10.14	62	296	13.36%	24.80%	86.2%	69.2%
Un-paired, single tail T test (5%)				0.164		0.033*		0.314		0.126

Robotic Vs Radiotherapy	Control procedure	Number of patients		Length of stay (days)		Complications		Complication rate		DFS
		Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control
Mahmoud et al., [173]	Radiotherapy	559	1314
Nichols et al., [181]	Radiotherapy	34	34			94	74	276.5%	217.6%
Smith et al., [165]	CRT	42	38							94%	85%
Nichols et al., [187]	Radiotherapy	34	34							88.20%
		Total				Total		Average Complication Rate		Average DFS Rate
		669	1420			94	74	276.47%	217.65%	91.1%	85%

Robotic Only	Number	Length of stay (days)	Complications	Complication rate	DFS	Recurrence	Recurrence rate
Van Loon et al., [159]	18	4.2	2	11.1%	86%	2	11.1%
Mercante et al., [162]	13	7	4	30.8%
Sethia et al., [175]	111					9	8.1%
Chan et al., [147]	4	4.25	0	0.0%
Chia et al., [148]	2015		205	10.2%
Durmus et al., [149]	22		0	0.0%
Durmus et al., [150]	3
Hans et al., [81]	3	14	0	0.0%		0	0.0%
Patel et al., [152]	47		5	10.6%
Tsang et al., 2013	1		0	0.0%
Almeida et al., [160]	410				94.50%	43	10.5%
Dabas et al., [161]	60	4.15	3	5.0%	64%
Razafindranaly et al., [164]	84		37	44.0%		2	2.4%
Aubry et al., [166]	178	12.6	87	48.9%
Fujiwara et al., [167]	10	8	0	0.0%		1	10.0%
Graneli et al., [168]	1	3	0	0.0%		0	0.0%
Duek et al., [169]	1	3	0	0.0%		0	0.0%
Lallemant et al., [172]	23	12.7
Rubek et al., [174]	30	5.3	6	20.0%
Doazan et al., [177]	122				90.20%	14	11.5%
Scott-Wittenbom et al., [179]	6
Hardy et al., [180]	1		0	0.0%		0	0.0%
Petruzzi et al., [182]	1		0	0.0%
Holcomb et al., [183]	2		0	0.0%		1	50.0%
Kubik et al., [184]	23		1	4.3%
D’Andrea et al., [186]	53		21	39.6%	46.10%
Virgilio et al., [188]	139				71.30%
Durmus et al. [156]	22		0	0.0%
Frenkel et al., [170]	425		273	64.2%
Gorphe et al., [171]	27		8	29.6%
Mockelmann et al., [163]	41	8	9	22.0%
Allessandrini et al., [176]	16	6.13		0.0%
	Total	Average	Total	Average complication rate	Average DFS	Average recurrence	Overall recurrence rate
	3912	7.10	661	13.6%	75.35%	6.5	9.44%

Overall
Number of patients		Length of stay		Complications		Average complication rate		Average DFS rate		Average recurrence		Overall recurrence rate
Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control	Robot	Control
7911	14,626	6.90	10.14	817	370	22.3%	63.37%	81.18%	73.15%	6.5		9.44%