Abstract
BackgroundNeck dissection is an integral component of the treatment of head and neck cancers. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the use of endoscope-assisted neck dissection (END) with conventional neck dissection (CND) in the existing English literature.MethodsA search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles reporting the results of the two techniques of neck dissection was completed independently by two individuals. The authors analyzed the data from each study using a random-effects model.ResultsThe pooled analysis demonstrated comparable lymph node yield, intraoperative blood loss, incidence of locoregional recurrence, and incidence of complications between the two groups. A significantly longer operative time but a shorter length of hospital stay was observed in the END group compared with the other group.ConclusionsCompared with conventional techniques, END offers similar oncologic outcomes and complication rates; however, it requires a longer operative time. Future studies with long-term follow-up and assessment of patient satisfaction are needed to confirm the clinical use of END.Graphical abstract
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
