Skip to main content
Download PDF

Quality of life of patients treated with robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region: a scoping review of empirical evidence

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 276 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There is a blooming trend in the application of robotic surgery in oral and maxillofacial care, and different studies had evaluated the quality of life (QoL) outcomes among patients who underwent robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region. However, empirical evidence on the QoL outcomes from these procedures is yet to be mapped. Thus, this study was conducted to evaluate the available scientific evidence and gaps concerning the QoL outcomes of patients treated with robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region.

Methods

This study adopted a scoping review design, and it was conducted and reported based on the Arksey and O’Malley, PRISMA-ScR, and AMSTAR-2 guidelines. SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL Complete, and APA PsycINFO were searched to retrieve relevant literature. Using Rayyan software, the retrieved literature were deduplicated, and screened based on the review’s eligibility criteria. Only the eligible articles were included in the review. From the included articles, relevant data were charted, collated, and summarized.

Results

A total of 123 literature were retrieved from the literature search. After deduplication and screening, only 18 heterogeneous original articles were included in the review. A total of 771 transoral robotic surgeries (TORSs) were reported in these articles, and the TORSs were conducted on patients with oropharyngeal carcinomas (OPC), recurrent tonsillitis, and obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In total, 20 different QoL instruments were used in these articles to assess patients’ QoL outcomes, and the most used instrument was the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory Questionnaire (MDADI). Physical functions related to swallowing, speech and salivary functions were the most assessed QoL aspects. TORS was reported to result in improved QOL in patients with OPC, OSA, and recurrent tonsillitis, most significantly within the first postoperative year. Notably, the site of the lesion, involvement of neck dissections and the characteristics of the adjuvant therapy seemed to affect the QOL outcome in patients with OPC.

Conclusion

Compared to the conventional treatment modalities, TORS has demonstrated better QoL, mostly in the domains related to oral functions such as swallowing and speech, among patients treated with such. This improvement was most evident within the initial post-operative year.

Peer Review reports

Background

Robotic surgery is a minimally invasive operative technology that has been shown to provide precise navigation through anatomical orifices, preserving vital structures [1, 2]. Thus, this surgical approach has mitigated most of the complications in conventional open surgical approaches, offering limited short-term side effects. The technical spectrum of robotic surgical equipment could range from small wristed instruments attached to a robotic arm to completely autonomous systems which can perform the procedure independently [3]. They also provide three-dimensional vision, improved surgical dexterity, facilities for telesurgery, better ergonomics and enhanced hand–eye coordination [4].

Complex anatomy in the oral and maxillofacial region causes a significant challenge for conventional surgical approaches. Robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region has been used for various applications such as in cancer treatments, thyroid and parathyroid disease, skull base pathologies and in the management of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) [5]. One of the main complications observed in open procedures is the amount of tissue trauma that could occur due to the large surgical incisions. Moreover, they could result in functional impairment, impaired self-esteem, and decreased quality of life [6]. In contrast, robotic surgery has been shown to cause less post-operative pain and low postoperative infections thus, providing a rapid recovery with better cosmetic outcomes [6].

According to the definition proposed by the World Health Organization, quality of life (QOL) means the “individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value system in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” [7]. In the health sector, patient-reported QOL outcomes help to facilitate the evaluation of the impact of a disease or treatment procedure, and allow comparison among different treatment strategies [3]. Thus, in an era of minimally invasive concepts, the evaluation of robotic surgery from the perspective of QOL is important. However, QOL outcomes could differ according to the application, anatomical regions, treatment modalities and disease extension.

In relation to robotic surgeries in the oral and maxillofacial region, the available information is unclear regarding the effect of such surgery on QOL outcomes [8,9,10]. Although several studies that have demonstrated evidence concerning QOL outcomes on different health conditions; no study is known to have mapped the empirical evidence concerning the QOL outcomes of patients who underwent robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region. Hence, there is a need for such review. This scoping review aimed to map the existing scientific evidence, and to identify evidence gaps, concerning the QOL of patients who underwent robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region.

Methods

Design

This scoping review was used to identify the gaps and provide an overview of the available evidence on the quality of life aspect of patients who underwent robotic surgeries in the oral and maxillofacial region. The research design developed by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was used for the review [11]. The review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for conducting Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [12]. Additionally, the guidelines in the AMSTAR 2 checklist were used to ensure the quality of the scoping review methodology and reporting process.

Identification of the research question

The scoping review’s question was: “What are the available scientific evidence and knowledge gaps in assessing the quality of life of patients treated with robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region?”.

Identification of relevant literature

To identify all relevant literature, a systematic search was performed across four databases on 21 January 2023: SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL Complete (via EBSCOHost interface), and APA PsycINFO (via EBSCOHost interface) to scoop out all literature addressing the review question. The search was conducted, with the aid of the Boolean operators “OR” and “AND” using the following search terms: “robot”, “robotic”, “dental surgery”, “oral surgery”, “maxillofacial surgery”, “periodontal surgery”, “quality of life”, and “wellbeing”. The search field was focused on titles, abstracts, and keywords to identify only relevant literature. Tables S1 to S3 (in the Supplementary file) depict the search strings of the literature search strategy for each of the databases used.

Selection of literature

All retrieved literature was imported into the Rayyan software for deduplication. After deduplication, the single-entry literature (deduplicated copies) was screened for eligibility for inclusion in the scoping review. Eligibility for inclusion in this review was based on the following criteria:

Inclusion criteria

  • Literature that was peer-reviewed journal articles.

  • Literature that was published in English.

  • Literature reporting empirical research findings on quality of life of oral and maxillofacial patients treated with robotic surgery.

  • Literature with accessible full texts.

Exclusion criteria

  • Literature that was published in non-peer-reviewed journals.

  • Peer-reviewed journal literature that did not report empirical data e.g. reviews, editorials, commentaries, etc.

  • Literature that was not published in English.

  • Literature reporting empirical research findings on quality of life of patients treated with nonrobotic surgery in the Oral and maxillofacial region.

  • Literature reporting empirical research findings on the quality of life of nonoral and non-maxillofacial patients treated with robotic surgery.

  • Literature without accessible full texts (in this context, literature with inaccessible full text was considered non-open access literature whose full text was not received within four weeks of its request from the corresponding author or the British Inter-Library Loan).

The screening process had two stages and was based on the above inclusion and exclusion criteria. Titles and abstracts screening was performed in the first stage to exclude all non-relevant literature. In the second stage, the full texts of all those studies that were not excluded in the first stage were evaluated for relevance. Only those studies that met all the inclusion criteria were considered eligible for inclusion in the review. Importantly, each stage of the screening process was performed by two independent reviewers who were dental surgeons (the first stage by KKK and AAS and the second stage by DLB and AAS). In situations of conflicts in the inclusion/exclusion of a study, they were resolved through critical discussions between the reviewers. The full texts of the included literature were shared with senior experts (who are professors and coauthors in this scoping review: RDJ and JA) for their review. Literature was retained when there was consensus between the experts and the initial reviewers. The final consensus document was shared with all authors for further review. Any disagreement on studies to include or exclude was resolved by the involvement of the entire team. No authors or institutions were contacted to identify additional sources.

Data charting

From the included literature, data concerning the author names, publication year, country of origin with the robotic system used, study design, study population attributes (disease/application characteristics), QOL instruments, review intervals and the main outcomes were extracted, using a bespoke data extraction sheet (Table 1).

Table 1 Summary of the included studies
Full size table

Collation, summary and reporting of results

The extracted data were collated, summarized, and presented in the forms of texts, tables and figures.

Results

One hundred and twenty-three papers were retrieved from the database search (PubMed = 3, SCOPUS = 117, CINAHL Complete = 2, APA PsycInfo = 1). Of these 123 papers, 6 were found to be duplicates and were removed. The remaining 117 papers were screened for inclusion in this review. After two-staged screening, only 18 papers (original research articles) were found eligible for inclusion and were included in this review (Fig. 1; Table S4 (Supplementary file)).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow chart diagram

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

Geographic distribution and study population

In terms of country of origin, all studies were from the USA and Europe and the majority were from the USA (n = 12, 66.67%). Others included three from Italy [13, 18, 25], two from the United Kingdom [15, 19] and one from Denmark [30] (Fig. 2). A total of 804 patients were studied in all the reviewed articles with a minimal sample size of 9 participants [29] to a maximum of 138 [20]. The populations mainly varied according to the main pathology and the age groups while in the cohorts of OPC, a significant variation was observed depending on the site of the lesion, human papillomavirus positivity, nodal involvement, and the extent of the lesion.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of the studies depending on the country of origin

Full size image

Study designs

According to the study design, 10 articles were prospective study designs (55.6%) [14,15,16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 28,29,30] while seven were retrospective studies [13, 17, 20, 23, 25,26,27]. One study was based on a prospective case series [19]. The follow-up periods varied from a one-month postoperative period to a median of 3.8 years.

Application of the TORS

In the reviewed articles, a total of 771 TORS procedures were conducted, and they were mainly on the management of OPC (n = 15), recurrent tonsillitis (n = 1) [25] and OSA (n = 2) [13, 19]. Except in nine studies [16, 20, 23, 24, 26,27,28,29,30] in which the robotic system used was not defined, all other studies were based on TORS performed using the da Vinci Robot (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) system.

QOL measures

Instruments

In total, 20 different instruments were used to assess various aspects of the QOL. Furthermore, some studies used multiple instruments measuring numerous domains. Except in six studies ([13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23], others used two or more instruments to evaluate the factors that could be related to QOL (Table 2). The most commonly used instrument was the MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory Questionnaire (MDADI), which evaluates the impact of dysphagia on QOL.

Table 2 Different instruments used for the measurements of QOL aspects
Full size table

QOL domains assessed, outcomes and factors affecting QOL

Of the physical, psychological, and social functions assessed in the included articles, physical functions related to swallowing, speech and salivary functions were the most assessed aspects (Table 2). Moreover, in patients with OPC, compared to other common treatment modalities such as chemoradiotherapy, most of the studies reported better outcomes in swallowing functions in patients who underwent TORS [14, 15, 17, 27, 29, 30] (Table 1). It was also noted that speech is minimally affected in TORS procedures [16, 21] (Table 1). Some studies also noted improvement in overall oral functions including taste, speech, saliva functions and eating [20, 26]. However, a significant difference in QOL outcomes was not observed after one year (Table 1). The location of the lesion, the need for unilateral/bilateral neck dissection and adjunctive therapies such as chemoradiation were the main factors affecting QOL (Table 1).

Among those patients who underwent tonsillectomy and tongue base reduction due to hypertrophic tongue, they also demonstrated better functional outcomes and improved QOL with TORS [13, 19, 25] (Table 1).

Discussion

This scoping review aimed to evaluate the available scientific evidence and gaps in the quality of life of patients treated with TORS in the oral and maxillofacial region. Within the studied literature, the application of TORS in the oral and maxillofacial region was limited to the management of OPC, OSA and recurrent tonsillitis. The applied robotic system, da Vinci Robot (Intuitive Surgical Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA), provides a magnified three-dimensional high-definition view, a more precise incision due to the wristed instruments that could be bent and rotated better than the human hand and a more reproducible approach compared with traditional open surgical techniques [31]. Nevertheless, affordability for the high implementation cost and the availability of training facilities may have contributed to the localization of the TORS to a few countries [32].

Assessment of QOL following a surgery provides a metric-based evaluation of the procedure which could also assist a patient in decision-making [33]. In surgeries involving OPC, QOL assessments are mostly based on the preservation of key functions such as speaking, swallowing, and aesthetics. Most of the studies used validated questionnaires specific for the assessment of post-surgical QOL, such as the EuroQol Health Survey (EQ-5D), European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core (EORTC QLQ-C30) and SF-36 Health Survey. Similarly, OSA could affect QOL significantly due to snoring, daytime sleepiness and unrestful sleep. Therefore, QOL could be a reliable parameter to evaluate the functional outcomes of a management protocol. Dysphagia, a well-known drawback of surgeries in the head and neck region, has been extensively assessed in this review using various instruments, including the MDADI, EORTC QLQ-H&N35, UW-QOL, and DS.

Although some studies demonstrated no significant difference between the cohorts [24, 26, 28], most of the evaluated studies demonstrated a shorter recovery time to reach baseline or better QOL in patients who underwent TORS. The deterioration in QOL in the presence of adjuvant therapy is also worth noting in decision-making on the suitable treatment option. However, as major gaps in the available literature, the absence of long-term effects of TORS on QOL and the lack of properly designed randomized controlled trials could be highlighted.

The comprehensive search strategy in four large databases and the minimally biased review protocol adhered to in this review were the main strengths. Additionally, the main findings of this review enhanced the literature by emphasizing the outcomes specific to robotic surgeries in the head and neck area and the gaps that need to be addressed in future studies.

Nevertheless, the studies included in this review have their own limitations. To start with, TORS needs specific training to develop the required skill expertise for the best outcome; however, bias due to the possible impact of the operator’s skills on the surgical outcome were not discussed extensively in any of those studies, except for the study by Arora et al. [19] where it was identified as a possible bias. Other identified limitations included small sample sizes [13, 16, 19,20,21, 24, 29, 30], selection bias due to inclusion of newly diagnosed patients [19, 20, 23, 24], and absence of control group in some studies [15, 19, 21]. Additionally, the comparison group in most of the included studies underwent adjuvant therapy under various management protocols, and this could have significantly affected the post-operative QOL they reported [17, 18, 22]. Varying survey time points [13, 15, 17, 22, 29], lack of pre-operative QOL data [13, 27, 28] and lack of long-term follow up [21] were also mentioned as possible limitations in the included studies.

Aside from the limitations of the included studies, this scoping review itself also has its own limitations. First, all articles considered for this scoping review were in English; hence, the possibility of non-inclusion of articles published in other languages could not be overruled in this review. Also, the variations in the study characteristics (such as study design) as well as those variations concerning the evaluated QOL aspects in the included studies may have limited the opportunity for a more extensive comparison of the outcomes reported in the included studies. Most of the reviewed assessments were also based on patient-reported outcomes; hence, the possibility of recall bias may exist in such outcomes, making the mapped evidence not absolutely accurate due to this possible bias. Furthermore, this review did not find any relevant randomized controlled trial for inclusion. However, randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evaluating a treatment outcome; hence, the conclusion of this review should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

Within the limitations in this scoping review, compared to the conventional treatment modalities, TORS has demonstrated better quality of life, mostly in the domains related to oral functions such as swallowing and speech, among patients treated with such. This improvement was most evident within the initial post-operative year. However, it is worth noting the heterogeneity of the study designs and the applied QOL instruments in the existing literature. Thus, properly designed prospective longitudinal cohort studies as well as randomized controlled trials, assessing similar aspects in QOL, would be needed to provide better evidence.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

TORS:

Trans-Oral Robotic Surgery

OSA:

Obstructive Sleep Apnoea

OPC:

Oro-Pharyngeal Carcinoma

CA:

Carcinoma

CRT:

Chemo-Radiotherapy

RT:

Radiotherapy

References

  1. Maza G, Sharma A. Past, Present, and Future of Robotic Surgery. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2020;53(6):935–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pal J, Chawla S. Robot-Assisted Maxillofacial Surgery, Real Scientific Dream: Current Status and Future Perspectives. 2014. Available from: www.theijst.com.

  3. Yao CMKL, Hutcheson KA. Quality of Life Implications After Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharyngeal Cancers. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2020;53(6):1117–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Müller PF, Schlager D, Hein S, Bach C, Miernik A, Schoeb DS. Robotic stone surgery – Current state and future prospects: A systematic review. Arab J Urol. 2018;16(3):357–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tamaki A, Rocco JW, Ozer E. The future of robotic surgery in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery. Oral Oncol. 2020;101:104510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Garg A, Dwivedi RC, Sayed S, Katna R, Komorowski A, Pathak KA, et al. Robotic surgery in head and neck cancer: A review. Oral Oncol. 2010;46(8):571–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. The Development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 1994. p. 41–57.

  8. de Almeida JR, Byrd JK, Wu R, Stucken CL, Duvvuri U, Goldstein DP, et al. A systematic review of transoral robotic surgery and radiotherapy for early oropharynx cancer: A systematic review. Laryngoscope. 2014;124(9):2096–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hurtuk AM, Marcinow A, Agrawal A, Old M, Teknos TN, Ozer E. Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Transoral Robotic Surgery. Otolaryngology-Head Neck Surg. 2012;146(1):68–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Liu HH, Li LJ, Shi B, Xu CW, Luo E. Robotic surgical systems in maxillofacial surgery: a review. Int J Oral Sci. 2017;9(2):63–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Vicini C, Dallan I, Canzi P, Frassineti S, La Pietra MG, Montevecchi F. Transoral robotic tongue base resection in obstructive sleep apnoea-hypopnoea syndrome: A preliminary report. ORL. 2010;72(1):22–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Genden EM, Kotz T, Tong CCL, Smith C, Sikora AG, Teng MS, et al. Transoral robotic resection and reconstruction for head and neck cancer. Laryngoscope. 2011;121:1668–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sinclair CF, McColloch NL, Carroll WR, Rosenthal EL, Desmond RA, Magnuson JS. Patient-perceived and objective functional outcomes following transoral robotic surgery for early oropharyngeal carcinoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;137(11):1112–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2011.172.

  16. Leonhardt FD, Quon H, Abrahão M, O’Malley BW, Weinstein GS. Transoral robotic surgery for oropharyngeal carcinoma and its impact on patient-reported quality of life and function. Head Neck. 2012;34(2):146–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen AM, Daly ME, Luu Q, Donald PJ, Farwell DG. Comparison of functional outcomes and quality of life between transoral surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer. Head Neck. 2015;37(3):381–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mercante G, Masiello A, Sperduti I, Cristalli G, Pellini R, Spriano G. Quality of life and functional evaluation in patients with tongue base tumors treated exclusively with transoral robotic surgery: A 1-year follow-up study. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2015;43(8):1561–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Arora A, Chaidas K, Garas G, Amlani A, Darzi A, Kotecha B, et al. Outcome of TORS to tongue base and epiglottis in patients with OSA intolerant of conventional treatment. Sleep Breathing. 2016;20(2):739–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ling DC, Chapman BV, Kim J, Choby GW, Kabolizadeh P, Clump DA, et al. Oncologic outcomes and patient-reported quality of life in patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with definitive transoral robotic surgery versus definitive chemoradiation. Oral Oncol. 2016;1(61):41–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ozbay I, Yumusakhuylu AC, Sethia R, Wei L, Old M, Agrawal A, et al. One-year quality of life and functional outcomes of transoral robotic surgery for carcinoma of unknown primary. Head Neck. 2017;39(8):1596–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Achim V, Bolognone RK, Palmer AD, Graville DJ, Light TJ, Li R, Gross N, Andersen PE, Clayburgh D. Long-term functional and quality-of-life outcomes after transoral robotic surgery in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;144(1):18–27. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1790.

  23. Gallitto M, Sindhu K, Wasserman I, De B, Gupta V, Miles BA, et al. Trimodality therapy for oropharyngeal cancer in the TORS era: Is there a cohort that may benefit? Head Neck. 2019;41(9):3009–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lazarus CL, Ganz C, Ru M, Miles BA, Kotz T, Chai RL. Prospective instrumental evaluation of swallowing, tongue function, and QOL measures following transoral robotic surgery alone without adjuvant therapy. Head Neck. 2019;41(2):322–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Di Luca M, Iannella G, Montevecchi F, Magliulo G, De Vito A, Cocuzza S, Maniaci A, Meccariello G, Cammaroto G, Sgarzani R, Ferlito S, Vicini C. Use of the transoral robotic surgery to treat patients with recurrent lingual tonsillitis. Int J Med Robot. 2020;16(4):e2106. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.2106.

  26. Xu MJ, Plonowska KA, Gurman ZR, Humphrey AK, Ha PK, Wang SJ, et al. Treatment modality impact on quality of life for human papillomavirus–associated oropharynx cancer. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(2):E48-56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee E, Gorelik D, Crowder HR, Badger C, Schottler J, Li NW, et al. Swallowing Function Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Transoral Robotic Surgery for Oropharyngeal Carcinoma: A 2-Year Follow-up. Otolaryngology - Head Neck Surg (United States). 2022;167(2):298–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Price K, Van Abel KM, Moore EJ, Patel SH, Hinni ML, Chintakuntlawar AV, et al. Long-Term Toxic Effects, Swallow Function, and Quality of Life on MC1273: A Phase 2 Study of Dose De-escalation for Adjuvant Chemoradiation in Human Papillomavirus-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer. Int J Radiation Oncol Biol Phys. 2022;114(2):256–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Salmon KM, Ruiz C, Cognetti DM, Curry JM, Luginbuhl AJ, Bar-Ad V, et al. Functional Swallow-Related Outcomes Following Transoral Robotic Surgery for Base of Tongue Carcinoma. Dysphagia. 2022;37(1):28–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Scott SI, Madsen AKØ, Rubek N, Kehlet H, von Buchwald C. Days alive and out of hospital after treatment for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma with primary transoral robotic surgery or radiotherapy–a prospective cohort study. Acta Otolaryngol. 2021;141(2):193–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bodner J, Augustin F, Wykypiel H, Fish J, Muehlmann G, Wetscher G, Schmid T. The da Vinci robotic system for general surgical applications: a critical interim appraisal. Swiss Med Wkly. 2005;135(45-46):674–8. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2005.11022.

  32. Mehta A, Cheng Ng J, Andrew Awuah W, Huang H, Kalmanovich J, Agrawal A, Abdul-Rahman T, Hasan MM, Sikora V, Isik A. Embracing robotic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: Potential benefits, challenges, and scope in the future. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;84:104803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104803.

  33. Lohr KN, Zebrack BJ. Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):99–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was self-funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

    Dhanushka Leuke Bandara & Ruwan Duminda Jayasinghe

  2. School of Dentistry, University of Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda

    Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi

  3. Faculty of Dentistry, University of Puthisastra, Phnom Penh, Cambodia

    Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi, Afeez Abolarinwa Salami & Ruwan Duminda Jayasinghe

  4. Campaign for Head and Neck Cancer Education (CHANCE) Programme, Cephas Health Research Initiative Inc, Ibadan, Nigeria

    Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi & Afeez Abolarinwa Salami

  5. School of Health and Life Sciences, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK

    Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi, Jimoh Amzat & Ruwan Duminda Jayasinghe

  6. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria

    Afeez Abolarinwa Salami & Timothy Olukunle Aladelusi

  7. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

    Ayodhya Chandrasiri

  8. Department of Sociology, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, Nigeria

    Jimoh Amzat

  9. Department of Sociology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

    Jimoh Amzat

Authors
  1. Dhanushka Leuke Bandara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Afeez Abolarinwa Salami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy Olukunle Aladelusi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ayodhya Chandrasiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jimoh Amzat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ruwan Duminda Jayasinghe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KKK, AAS and TOA participated in study conception and design. KKK and AAS refined and developed the primary search strategy. All authors were involved in drafting and revising the manuscript. DLB, KKK and AAS performed data collection and analysis. DLB, KKK and RDJ provided critical revisions to the manuscript. DLB, KKK, and RDJ provided supervision of all aspects of the protocol. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bandara, D.L., Kanmodi, K.K., Salami, A.A. et al. Quality of life of patients treated with robotic surgery in the oral and maxillofacial region: a scoping review of empirical evidence. BMC Oral Health 24, 276 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04035-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-04035-w

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us