Clinical Outcomes with Transoral and External Surgical Approaches for Resection of Parapharyngeal Space Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Importance

There are few studies comparing the various surgical approaches for the resection of parapharyngeal space tumors (PPSTs).

Objective

To compare surgical outcomes between transoral approaches (conventional transoral approach, endoscopic-assisted transoral approach, and transoral robotic surgery) and external approaches (EAs) in treating PPSTs.

Design

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Setting

Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched until August 2024. Findings were reported as per the PRISMA guidelines.

Participants

Adult patients with PPST.

Interventions

Surgical tumor resection using external or transoral approaches.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall effect size for primary outcomes (overall, neurological, non-neurological postoperative complications, and recurrence rates) was presented as event rate, while secondary outcomes (intraoperative bleeding, operation time, and hospitalization duration) were presented as mean differences (MDs).

Results

Forty-eight studies involving 1728 patients with PPST were included. EAs were associated with higher incidences of overall [0.40 (0.32-0.48) vs 0.11 (0.08-0.15)] and neurological [0.30 (0.22-0.38) vs 0.05 (0.03-0.07); P < .0001] postoperative complications than transoral approaches (P < .0001 for both) with no significant difference in non-neurological complications. In addition, transoral approaches were associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications than EAs for benign [0.12 (0.22-0.35) vs 0.39 (0.29-0.48); P < .0001], malignant [0.17 (−0.08- 0.41) vs 0.63 (0.30-0.95); P = .03], and prestyloid [0.11 (0.06-0.17) vs 0.39 (0.22-0.05); P = .001] but not poststyloid tumors. Furthermore, transoral approaches were associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (MD: −104.30 mL; P < .00001) and shorter hospitalization (MD: −1.70 days; P = .002) compared to EAs.

Conclusion

Transoral surgical approaches may be safe and feasible surgical treatments for selected patients, particularly in the prestyloid compartment, when performed in centers with expertise in advanced transoral surgery. Compared to EAs, these approaches had fewer postoperative neurological complications, less intraoperative bleeding, and shorter hospitalization.

Graphical Abstract

Keywords

endoscopic robotic transoral cancer tumor lesion

Key Message

Transoral approaches may be associated with fewer neurological complications and improved perioperative outcomes compared to external approaches (EAs) in the surgical treatment of PPST.

There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between the different types of transoral approaches.

Transoral approaches are best reserved for carefully selected patients in experienced centers.

Introduction

The parapharyngeal space (PPS) is an anatomically distinct region shaped like an inverted pyramid extending from the base of the skull to the level of the hyoid bone on both sides of the pharynx, bordered by the carotid sheath and the retropharyngeal space.¹ The region has been anatomically subdivided into the prestyloid (or true PPS) and the poststyloid parapharyngeal (or carotid space) spaces.¹

PPS tumors (PPSTs) are a rare subset of head and neck neoplasms that account for 0.5% to 1% of all head and neck lesions, with 80% to 90% being benign.^2
-4 Nonetheless, they are clinically important from a diagnosis and management perspective due to their histological diversity and anatomy.^1
-3,5
-7 This deep neck space is challenging to access due to its medial location within the head and neck and contains many vital structures, such as cranial nerves and major vessels.¹

Although surgical intervention is the standard treatment for most PPSTs,³ different techniques may be used depending on the precise location of the PPST, its size, vascularity, histological characteristics, and the patient’s or surgeon’s preference. External surgical approaches (EAs) are most commonly used for tumors of the parapharynx, utilizing techniques such as transparotid, transmandibular, infratemporal fossa, or transcervical.⁸ While transcervical and combined transcervical-parotid approaches are preferred for resecting most PPSTs, the transoral approach has recently been introduced as an alternative for selected tumors, offering a minimally invasive option.⁹ The transoral approach involves accessing PPSTs through the oropharynx, thus minimizing external incisions and visible scarring.⁹ Transoral approaches may include both endoscopic-assisted transoral approach (EATA)¹⁰ and transoral robotic surgery (TORS).¹¹ EATA and TORS are increasingly becoming the preferred surgical approach and may provide comparable surgical outcomes.⁹

While previous systematic reviews have evaluated transoral approaches, their scope focused on a single transoral modality. For instance, De Virgilio et al¹² evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of PPST treated exclusively by TORS, while Chen et al¹³ compared EATA to EAs, excluding robotic techniques. A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Faisal et al¹⁴ focused primarily on neurological complications in benign PPST without a comprehensive comparison of surgical approaches.

The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to address these gaps by comparing clinical outcomes, including postoperative complications (dichotomized as neurological and non-neurological), recurrence rates, operation time, hospitalization time, and intraoperative bleeding, across a broader spectrum of transoral techniques versus EAs. We also compared the clinical outcomes with various transoral approaches, such as conventional transoral, EATA, and TORS. Stratified analyses by tumor location and pathology were also performed.

Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA reporting guidelines. The protocol for this study was preregistered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42024580626).

Search Strategy

Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until August 2024 for relevant literature. With the support of an academic librarian, we devised a search strategy that combined relevant keywords, including surgery, parapharyngeal space tumors, and complications, with the Boolean expressions “AND” and “OR.” Furthermore, the database search was supplemented by a thorough review of the bibliographies of all included studies and relevant documents. The full search strategy developed to identify relevant articles from the above-mentioned databases is shown in Supplemental Table 1.

Study Screening and Selection

We utilized Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia), a systematic review management tool, to facilitate the study selection process. The titles and abstracts of the identified studies were independently reviewed by 2 reviewers (A.S.A. and M.C.G.). A full-text review of the shortlisted articles was used to determine their eligibility. Any disagreements or disputes during the selection process were resolved by discussing with the senior authors. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they adhered to the following PICO criteria: Patients (P): Adults diagnosed with any PPSTs; Intervention (I): Surgical approaches such as the transoral approach, transcervical approach, transcervical-parotid approach, transmandibular approach, infratemporal fossa approach, TORS, EATA, or a combination of any surgical approaches; Comparison (C): Direct and indirect comparisons between different surgical approaches; and Outcomes (O): Postoperative complications, recurrence rates, intraoperative bleeding, operation time, and hospitalization time. Research studies categorized as conference abstracts, letters to the editor, literature reviews, cadaveric studies, narrative reviews, case reports, case studies with fewer than 5 patients, and commentaries were excluded. Studies involving pediatric patients, those evaluating non-surgical treatment methods for PPST, or authored in a non-English language were also excluded.

Data Extraction

Two reviewers (A.S.A. and M.C.G.) independently extracted data required for analysis using a standardized Excel spreadsheet. Data extracted included the surname of the primary author, publication year, study location (Country), study design, pertinent characteristics of enrolled participants such as sample size, the type of PPST and mean age of enrolled participants, the follow-up duration, surgical approaches, postoperative complications, recurrence rates, operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and hospitalization time.

Study Outcomes

The primary outcome of this study was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were operation time, intraoperative bleeding, hospitalization time, and recurrence rates. The postoperative complications were further categorized into neurological (eg, cranial nerve deficits, Horner’s syndrome, first bite syndrome, etc.) and non-neurological complications (eg, wound infection, hemorrhage, seroma, etc.).

Study Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of the studies eligible for inclusion in the current systematic review and meta-analysis was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.¹⁵ The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale enables studies to be independently assessed based on their selection, comparability, and outcomes. A maximum of 1 point was assigned for every criterion fully addressed. Otherwise, no point was assigned. The overall methodological quality of each study was categorized as poor (score 0-3), fair (score 4-6), or good (score 7-9).

Data Analysis

The STATA 18 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) software was used to compare the rate of postoperative complications between transoral surgical approaches and EAs in a 1-group meta-analysis, for which the overall effect size was presented in terms of the event rate (ER). For each group, ER was defined as the number of events per total patients. Postoperative complications were grouped according to the tumor behavior (benign or malignant) and tumor location (prestyloid or poststyloid). Furthermore, a test for subgroup differences was used to compare the outcomes of EAs and transoral approaches, as well as between the different transoral approaches. Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4.1. The Cochrane Collaboration, version 2014) was used to compare operation time, intraoperative bleeding, and hospitalization time between transoral surgical approaches and EAs, with the overall effect size presented in terms of the mean difference (MD).

All pooled outcomes were provided with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interstudy heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics, with values exceeding 50% considered high.^16,17 The DerSimonian–Laird random-effects model was employed whenever significant heterogeneity was observed to provide a conservative estimate of the overall effect. Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was used for analysis.

Results

Search Results

A total of 505 records were identified from the electronic database search: 258 from Embase, 133 from Medline, 101 from Web of Science, and 13 from CINAHL. Of these, 174 duplicate records were excluded, and another 237 were excluded for having irrelevant titles and abstracts. The remaining 94 records were subjected to full-text review, from which we excluded 2 abstracts, 1 study with the wrong intervention, 8 published in different languages, 1 study involving the pediatric population, 6 articles without full texts, 8 case series with less than 5 individuals, and 20 that did not assess outcomes based on the individual surgical approaches. Ultimately, 48 records met the inclusion criteria.^10,18
-64 The PRISMA flowchart for the study screening and selection process is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram for study screening and selection.

Characteristics of Included Studies

The 48 included studies involved 1728 patients aged 29.7 to 66.3 years; 1418 had benign, and 155 had malignant PPST. The follow-up duration ranged between 6 and 180 months. All the studies were published between 1995 and 2024 (Table 1). The largest number of included studies was conducted in China (n = 10), followed by the United States (n = 8), Italy (n = 7), and India (n = 6). Two studies each were conducted in France, Korea, Mexico, and Greece, while 1 study each was conducted in Iran, Turkey, the Czech Republic, Germany, Israel, Taiwan, Japan, and Spain. One study did not specify the location where it was carried out.²⁴ In patients undergoing transoral surgical excision, the most common pathologies of PPST were pleomorphic adenoma and schwannoma; while for patients treated by EAs, the most common pathologies were pleomorphic adenoma, schwannoma, and paraganglioma (Supplemental Table 2).

Table 1.

Study Characteristics, Including Patient Demographics and Surgical Approaches Evaluated.

Author (country)	Study design	Patient characteristics				Follow-up (months)	Surgical approaches
Author (country)	Study design	Sample size (n)	Mean age (years)	Type of PPST (benign/malignant)	Site of PPST (prestyloid/poststyloid)	Follow-up (months)	Surgical approaches
Aghazadeh et al¹⁸ (Iran)	Retrospective	78	40.9	78/—	65/13	30.9	Transcervical (33) Transoral (35) Transcervical-transoral (10)
Basaran et al²⁰ (Turkey)	Retrospective	44	44.6	44/—	27/17	61	Transcervical
Betka et al²¹ (Czech Republic)	Retrospective	26	50.2	24/2	NR	77	Transoral
Boyce et al²² (United States)	Retrospective	17	61.6	16/1	NR	10.5	TORS
Bozza et al²³ (Italy)	Retrospective	12	49	8/4	9/3	120	Transoral (2) Transparotid-Transcervical (4) Transcervical (1) Transcervical-transmandibular with double osteotomy (3) Transcervical-transmandibular with “swing” approach (2)
Chandra et al²⁴ (NR)	Retrospective	7	47.8	7/—	4/3	9	Transcervical (3) EATA (4)
Chang et al²⁵ (United States)	Retrospective	51	50	51/—	NR	115	Transcervical
Chen et al²⁷ (China)	NR	6	42	6/—	NR	16	EATA
Chen et al²⁶ (China)	Retrospective	23	EATA: 34.81 ETC + MO: 44.50	20/3	NR	14.7	EATA (11) ETC + MO (12)
Chen et al²⁸ (China)	Retrospective	12	41	12/—	10/2	32	EATA
Chu et al²⁹ (Italy)	Retrospective	53	51	28/25	31/14	28.6	TORS (7) Transcervical (26) Transcervical-parotid (17) Transoral (1) Transmandibular (2)
Das et al³⁰ (India)	Prospective	10	36.5	9/1	5/5	NR	Transoral (5) Transcervical (5)
Ducic et al³¹ (United States)	Retrospective	8	29.7	8/—	NR	28.2	Transoral
Fan et al³² (China)	Retrospective	44	EATA: 49.8 EAs (25)	44/—	NR	EATA: 29.5 EAs: 32.6	EATA (19) EAs (25)
Fan et al³³ (China)	Retrospective	112	49.1	112/—	NR	57.6	Transoral (36) EA (76)
Fermi et al³⁴ (Germany)	Retrospective	60	51.4	43/17	38/18	46	Transcervical-parotid
Galli et al³⁵ (Italy)	Retrospective	98	NR	69/28	98/—	NR	Transmandibular (15) Transcervical (55) Transoral (26)
Goodwin and Chandler³⁶ (United States)	NR	6	66.3	6/—	NR	24-180	Transoral
Guo et al³⁷ (China)	Retrospective	69	EATA: 51.78 EAs: 48.05	69/—	NR	6	EATA (32) EAs (37)
Horowitz et al³⁸ (Israel)	Retrospective	29	46.4	29/—	29/—	41.7	Transcervical-transparotid (13) Transcervical (15) Transcervical-transmandibular (1)
Krishnappa and Nikisha³⁹ (India)	Retrospective	13	35.8	11/2	10/3	12-36	EATA (9) EAs (4)
Laccourreye et al⁴⁰ (France)	Retrospective	10	NR	10/—	10/—	120	Transcervical
Li et al⁴² (Taiwan)	NR	5	49	5/—	5/—	8	EATA
Li et al⁴¹ (China)	Retrospective	16	41.4	16/—	—/16	43.25	EATA
Lim et al⁴³ (Korea)	Retrospective	136	44.1	NR	87/49	58.8	TORS (53) EAs (83)
Luna-Ortiz et al⁴⁴ (Mexico)	Retrospective	21	41	16/5	9/11	132	Transcervical (12) Transcervical-transparotid (4) Transcervical-transoral (2) Other (3)
Luna-Ortiz et al⁴⁵ (Mexico)	Retrospective	14	46.9	11/3	7/7	15.5	Transcervical
Malone et al⁴⁶ (United States)	Retrospective	33	52.8	24/9	NR	24	Transcervical (33)
Markou et al⁴⁷ (Greece)	Retrospective	7	52.6	7/—	7/—	30.3	Transcervical-transoral
Matsuki et al⁴⁸ (Japan)	Retrospective	67	46	67/—	67/—	NR	Transcervical (63) Transcervical-transparotid (4)
Meng et al¹⁰ (China)	NR	9	51	8/1	9/—	14	EATA
Motta et al⁴⁹ (Italy)	Retrospective	9	48.5	9/—	7/2	116.4	EATA
Nonaka et al⁵⁰ (United States)	NR	17	42.6	17/—	NR	43.2	Infratemporal fossa
O’Malley et al⁵¹ (United States)	Prospective	10	53.5	10/—	NR	29.9	TORS
Orlando et al⁵² (Italy)	Retrospective	7	50.9	5/2	NR	28.1	EATA
Panda et al⁵³ (India)	Retrospective	5	35	5/—	3/2	21.6	TORS
Papadogeorgakis et al⁵⁴ (Greece)	NR	13	46.3	11/2	NR	33	Transmandibular (7) Transcervical (4) Transoral (2)
Park et al⁵⁵ (Korea)	Prospective	11	42	11/—	NR	17.7	TORS
Patadia and Keshri⁵⁶ (India)	Retrospective	14	42.4	14/—	NR	6	Transcervical
Poletti et al⁵⁷ (Italy)	Retrospective	34	50.6	23/11	NR	NR	Infratemporal fossa (4) Transparotid (14) Transcervical (3) Transcervical-transparotid (7) Transcervical-transmandibular (3) Other (3)
Viros Porcuna et al⁶² (Spain)	Retrospective	28	60.18	17/11	28/—	38	TOR (12) TORS plus transcervical (2) EAs (14)
Pradhan et al⁵⁸ (India)	Retrospective	14	39	14/—	4/10	12	Transcervical (10) Transparotid-transmandibular (1) Transparotid-transoral (2) Transcervical-transparotid (1)
Presutti et al⁵⁹ (Italy)	Retrospective	18	49	18/—	NR	32	Transcervical (7) Transcervical-transparotid (11)
Schlieve et al⁶⁰ (United States)	Retrospective	17	57	NR	3/13	40	Transmandibular approach with double mandibular osteotomy
Sharma et al⁶¹ (India)	NR	5	42.2	5/—	NR	NR	TORS
Wang et al⁶³ (China)	Retrospective	20	EATA: 42 EAs: 41.73	20/—	NR	6-60	EATA (5) EAs (15)
Al Zadjali et al¹⁹ (France)	Retrospective	21	52.6	21/—	21/—	21	Transcervical-transparotid (11) TORS (6) Transoral (4)
Zhu et al⁶⁴ (China)	Retrospective	389	NR	360/29	NR	EATA: 24.3 EAs: 53.7	EATA (204) Conventional EAs (185)

Abbreviations: EA, external surgical approach; EATA, endoscopic-assisted transoral approach; NR, no record; PPST, parapharyngeal space tumor; TORS, transoral robotic surgery.

Complications

Facial nerve deficits, palsy, paralysis, or injury (n = 12) were the most reported neurological complications in the included studies, followed by Horner’s syndrome (n = 9), cranial nerve deficits/palsy/paralysis/injury (n = 8), vocal cord paralysis/palsy (n = 6), marginal mandibular nerve palsy/paralysis/dysfunction (n = 6), first bite syndrome (n = 5), and Frey’s syndrome (n = 4). Common non-neurological complications included wound complications (including dehiscence and infection; n = 10), hematoma (n = 7), trismus (n = 6), and hemorrhage (n = 6). The complications reported in the included studies are detailed in Table 2.

Table 2.

A Summary of Neurological and Non-Neurological Complications.

Author	Neurological complications	Non-neurological complications	Event rate, n/N (%)
Author	Neurological complications	Non-neurological complications	Neurological	Non-neurological
Aghazadeh et al¹⁸	Nerve 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 palsy and Horner’s syndrome	Hematoma and trismus	Transoral: 0/35 (0%) Transcervical: 7/33 (21.2%) Transcervical-transoral: 4/10 (40%)	Transoral: 1/35 (2.86%) Transcervical: 2/33 (6.1%) Transcervical-transoral: 1/10 (10%)
Basaran et al²⁰	Cranial nerve paralysis	Tracheotomy and vascular injury	Transcervical: 19/44 (43.2%)	Transcervical: 4/44 (9.1%)
Betka et al²¹	None	Hematoma, phlegmon, and trismus	TORS: 0/17	TORS: 3/17
Boyce et al²²	Horner’s syndrome and temporary marginal mandibular dysfunction	None	Transoral: 0/2 EAs: 3/10	Transoral: 0/2 EAs: 0/10
Chandra et al²⁴	Vocal cord palsy and marginal mandibular nerve palsy	Wound dehiscence	Transcervical: 3/3 EATA: 0/4	Transcervical: 0/3 EATA: 1/4
Chang et al²⁵	First bite syndrome, cranial nerve deficits, and marginal mandibular nerve weakness	Trismus or jaw pain	Transcervical: 11/51	Transcervical: 9/51
Chen et al²⁷	None	None	EATA: 0/6 (0%)	EATA: 0/6 (0%)
Chen et al²⁶	Temporary facial paresis	None	EATA: 0/11 ETC+MO: 1/12	EATA: 0/11 ETC+MO: 0/12
Chen et al²⁸	Vocal cord paralysis and Horner’s syndrome	None	EATA: 2/12	EATA: 0/12
Das et al³⁰	Temporary nerve injury	Vascular injury and wound complications	Transoral: 0/5 Transcervical: 2/5	Transoral: 1/5 Transcervical: 3/5
Ducic et al³¹	Vocal cord paralysis and laryngeal nerve palsies	None	Transoral: 3/8	Transoral: 0/8
Fan et al³²	Horner’s syndrome	Lip/tongue numbness, temporary corner mouth deviation, seroma/hematoma, wound infection, and mouth opening limitation	EATA: 2/19 EAs: 3/25	EATA: 4/19 EAs: 7/25
Fan et al³³	Transient facial paralysis and Frey’s syndrome	None	Transoral: 0/36 EAs: 20/76	Transoral: 0/36 EAs: 0/76
Fermi et al³⁴	Cranial nerve paralysis	None	Transcervical-parotid: 26/60	Transcervical-parotid: 0/60
Galli et al³⁵	Vagus nerve injury, glossopharyngeal injury, facial nerve injury, spinal nerve injury, and recurrent nerve injury	Ab-ingestis pneumonia, persistent local pain, dyspnea, vomiting, disorientation, trismus, and hemorrhage	Transmandibular: 6/15 Transcervical: 10/55 Transoral: 0/26	Transmandibular: 4/15 Transcervical: 1/55 Transoral: 3/26
Goodwin and Chandler³⁶	None	None	Transoral: 0/6	Transoral: 0/6
Guo et al³⁷	Nerve injury and dysphagia	Difficulty in mouth opening, hemorrhage, and salivary gland fistula	EATA: 3/32 EAs: 7/37	EATA: 2/32 EAs:7/37
Horowitz et al³⁸	Facial nerve paralysis, first bite syndrome, and Frey’s syndrome	Infection and hemorrhage	Transcervical: 0/15 Transparotid: 2/13 Transmandibular: 0/1	Transcervical: 1/15 Transparotid: 1/13 Transmandibular: 0/1
Krishnappa and Nikisha³⁹	None	Seroma and malocclusion	EATA: 0/9 Transcervical with or without mandibulotomy: 0/4	EATA: 1/9 Transcervical with or without mandibulotomy: 1/4
Laccourreye et al⁴⁰	Great auricular nerve transection without subsequent symptomatic neuroma	Transoral approach to free the upper pole of the adenoma, capsule effraction, and hematoma	Transcervical: 2/10	Transcervical: 6/10
Li et al⁴²	None	None	EATA: 0/5	EATA: 0/5
Li et al⁴¹	None	Trismus and wound dehiscence	EATA: 0/16	EATA: 5/16
Lim et al⁴³	Facial weakness, vocal cord paralysis, cranial nerve palsy, Horner’s syndrome, and first bite syndrome	None	TORS: 17/53 EAs: 36/83	TORS: 0/53 EAs: 0/83
Luna-Ortiz et al⁴⁴	Cranial nerve injury and phrenic nerve injury	Sensory deprivation C2 level	EAs: 5/21	EAs: 1/21
Luna-Ortiz et al⁴⁵	Frey syndrome	Odynophagia and massive bleeding	Transcervical: 1/14	Transcervical: 5/14
Markou et al⁴⁷	None	Mild postoperative pain	Transcervical-transoral: 0/7	Transcervical-transoral: 2/7
Matsuki et al⁴⁸	Facial palsy, trigeminal nerve palsy, vagus nerve palsy, and Frey’s syndrome	None	Transcervical: 20/63 Transcervical-parotid: 2/4	Transcervical: 0/63 Transcervical-parotid: 0/4
Meng et al¹⁰	None	None	EATA: 0/9	EATA: 0/9
Motta et al⁴⁹	Horner’s syndrome	None	EATA: 2/9	EATA: 0/9
Nonaka et al⁵⁰	Hoarseness, dysphagia, gingiva hypoesthesia, and facial hypoesthesia	Wound infection	Infratemporal fossa: 8/17	Infratemporal fossa: 1/17
O’Malley et al⁵¹	None	Pharyngeal dehiscence and conversion to open approach	TORS: 0/10	TORS: 3/10
Orlando et al⁵²	None	Wound dehiscence	EATA: 0/4	EATA: 0/4
Panda et al⁵³	Horner’s syndrome	Minor bleeding	TORS: 1/5	TORS: 1/5
Papadogeorgakis et al⁵⁴	Temporary marginal mandibular branch neuropathy and temporary XII neuropathy	Hematoma	Transoral: 0/2 EAs: 3/11	Transoral: 0/2 EAs: 1/11
Park et al⁵⁵	None	None	TORS: 0/11	TORS: 0/11
Patadia and Keshri⁵⁶	Hoarseness and marginal mandibular palsy	None	Transcervical: 4/14	Transcervical: 0/14
Poletti et al⁵⁷	Cranial nerve deficits and fist bite syndrome	None	EAs: 20/34	EAs: 0/34
Viros Porcuna et al⁶²	Transient and permanent facial palsy	Wound dehiscence, cervical hematoma, and pharyngeal wound dehiscence	TORS: 0/14 EAs: 8/14	TORS: 2/14 EAs: 1/14
Pradhan et al⁵⁸	Facial palsy, marginal mandibular palsy, vagus nerve, and internal carotid injury	Wound infection	EAs: 5/14	EAs: 1/14
Presutti et al⁵⁹	Cranial nerve deficits and vocal cord paralysis	None	EAs: 5/18	EAs: 0/18
Schlieve et al⁶⁰	First bite syndrome, bilateral strokes, and subjective hypoesthesia	Malocclusion and osteomyelitis	Transmandibular approach with double mandibular osteotomy: 3/17	Transmandibular approach with double mandibular osteotomy: 4/17
Sharma et al⁶¹	None	Capsule breach	TORS: 0/5	TORS: 2/5
Wang et al⁶³	Horner’s syndrome	None	EATA: 1/5 EAs: 3/15	EATA: 0/5 EAs: 0/15
Al Zadjali et al¹⁹	Facial nerve palsy and Frey’s syndrome	Trismus and wound dehiscence	Transcervical-parotid: 11/11 Transoral: 0/4	Transcervical-parotid: 0/11 Transoral: 3/4
Zhu et al⁶⁴	Cranial nerve palsy, facial nerve palsy, vocal cord paralysis, Horner’s syndrome, and cerebrospinal fluid leakage	Infection, laryngeal mucosal swelling, and hemorrhage or hematoma	EATA: 10/204 EAs: 25/185	EATA: 5/204 EAs: 8/185

Abbreviations: EA, external surgical approach; EATA, endoscopic-assisted transoral approach; TORS, transoral robotic surgery.

Primary Outcomes: Transoral Approaches Versus EAs

Pooled results from 31 studies show that the incidence of postoperative complications was significantly lower in PPST patients treated with transoral approaches [ER: 0.11, 95% CI (0.08-0.15)] compared to those treated with EAs [0.40 (0.32-0.48); P < .0001; Table 3 and Supplemental Figure 1].

Table 3.

Meta-Analytic Results of Postoperative Complications Among Patients Treated with Transoral and External Approaches.

Postoperative complications	Surgical approach	Event rate (95% CI)	P	Group difference	I² (%)
Any	Overall	0.28 (0.23-0.33)	<.0001	<0.0001	89.31
	External	0.40 (0.32-0.48)	<.0001		86.88
	Transoral	0.11 (0.08-0.15)	<.0001		50.99
Neurological	Overall	0.20 (0.15-0.24)	<.0001	<0.0001	88.87
	External	0.30 (0.22-0.38)	<.0001		89.21
	Transoral	0.05 (0.03-0.07)	.16		20.71
Non-neurological	Overall	0.06 (0.04-0.08)	<.0001	0.37	55.59
	External	0.07 (0.04-0.09)	<.0001		67.79
	Transoral	0.05 (0.03-0.08)	.06		31.11

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

In the subgroup analysis, we observed a significantly higher incidence of neurological complications in patients treated with EAs compared to those treated with transoral approaches [0.30 (0.22-0.38) vs 0.05 (0.03-0.07); P < .0001; Table 3 and Supplemental Figure 2]. However, there was no significant difference in non-neurological complications between EAs and transoral approaches (Table 3 and Supplemental Figure 3). High inter-study heterogeneity was detected for neurological and non-neurological complications with EA (I² = 89.21% and 67.79%) but not for transoral approaches (I² = 20.71% and 31.11%).

Furthermore, after subcategorizing the postoperative complications according to tumor behavior, we found that transoral approaches were associated with significantly fewer postoperative complications than EAs when used to excise benign tumors [0.12 (0.22-0.35) vs 0.39 (0.29-0.48); P < .0001] and malignant [0.17 (−0.08-0.41) vs 0.63 (0.30-0.95); P = .03] tumors (Table 4 and Supplemental Figures 4 and 5). High inter-study heterogeneity was detected for postsurgical complications in both subgroup analyses with EA (I² = 83.54% and 61.73%) but not transoral approaches (I² = 46.42% and 0%).

Table 4.

Comparison of Postoperative Complications Between Transoral and External Surgical Approaches Stratified According to the Tumor Type and Location.

Category	Surgical approach	Event rate (95% CI)	P	Group difference	I² (%)
Benign tumors	Overall	0.28 (0.22-0.35)	<.0001	<0.0001	87.41
	External	0.39 (0.29-0.48)	<.0001		83.54
	Transoral	0.12 (0.22-0.35)	<.0001		46.42
Malignant tumors	Overall	0.42 (0.09-0.76)	<.0001	0.03	82.11
	External	0.63 (0.30-0.95)	.03		61.73
	Transoral	0.17 (−0.08-0.41)	1.0		0
Prestyloid tumors	Overall	0.29 (0.18-0.40)	<.0001	<0.0001	88.85
	External	0.39 (0.22-0.05)	<.0001		91.38
	Transoral	0.11 (0.06-0.17)	.38		6.59
Poststyloid tumors	Overall	0.61 (0.48-0.74)	<.0001	0.97	59.78
	External	0.62 (0.45-0.78)	.03		56.49
	Transoral	0.61 (0.37-0.85)	.01		68.78

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval.

When categorized by tumor location, we noted lower incidences of postoperative complications with transoral approaches, but only for tumors in the prestyloid compartment [0.11 (0.06-0.17) vs 0.39 (0.22-0.05); P = .001; Table 4 and Supplemental Figure 6]. High inter-study heterogeneity was detected for postsurgical complications with EA (I² = 91.38%) but not with transoral approaches (I² = 6.59%). No significant difference in postoperative complications was observed for poststyloid PPST excised using the transoral approaches and EAs, albeit with high inter-study heterogeneity (I² = 68.78% and 56.49% with the 2 approaches, respectively; Table 4 and Supplemental Figure 7).

A subgroup analysis of recurrence rates among PPST patients showed no significant difference between transoral approaches and EAs [0.03 (0.02-0.05) vs 0.02 (0.01-0.03); P = .35; Table 5 and Supplemental Figure 8]. Low interstudy heterogeneity was observed in both EAs and transoral approaches groups (I² = 16.41% and 0%, respectively).

Table 5.

Meta-Analytic Results of Recurrence Rates Among Patients Treated with Transoral and External Approaches.

Recurrence rates	Approach	Event rate (95% CI)	P	Group difference	I² (%)
Different approaches	Overall	0.03 (0.02-0.04)	.93	0.35	0
	EAs	0.02 (0.01-0.03)	.24		16.41
	Transoral approaches	0.03 (0.02-0.05)	1.00		0
Transoral approaches	Transoral	0.03 (0.00-0.06)	.72	0.73	0
	EATA	0.05 (0.01-0.08)	1.00		0
	TORS	0.03 (0.00-0.06)	.98		0

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EA, external surgical approach; EATA, endoscopic-assisted transoral approach; TORS, transoral robotic surgery.

Primary Outcomes: Comparison of Different Transoral Approaches

Our results showed no significant difference in postoperative complications between EATA, TORS, and the conventional transoral approach (Table 6 and Supplemental Figure 9). While low inter-study heterogeneity was detected for EATA (I² = 0%) and conventional transoral (I² = 37.01%) approaches, high heterogeneity was detected for TORS (I² = 53.78%). Similarly, sub-group analysis by neurological or non-neurological complications did not show a statistically significant difference between EATA, TORS, and the conventional transoral approach (Table 6 and Supplemental Figures 10 and 11). Low heterogeneity was detected for all analyses except neurological complications with TORS (I² = 61.17%).

Table 6.

Meta-Analytic Results of Postoperative Complications Among Patients Treated with Different Transoral Approaches.

Postoperative complications	Approach	Event rate (95% CI)	P	Group difference	I² (%)
Any	Overall	0.14 (0.09-0.18)	.01	0.09	44.36
	EATA	0.13 (0.08-0.18)	.52		0
	TORS	0.19 (0.08-0.29)	.03		53.78
	Transoral	0.14 (0.09-0.18)	.12		37.01
Neurological	Overall	0.06 (0.03-0.05)	.21	0.09	17.32
	EATA	0.07 (0.03-0.11)	.97		0
	TORS	0.09 (0.01-0.16)	.01		61.17
	Transoral	0.02 (−0.01-0.05)	.51		0
Non-neurological	Overall	0.03 (0.02-0.05)	.04	0.05	34.14
	EATA	0.08 (0.04-0.13)	.69		0
	TORS	0.02 (−0.01-0.04)	.09		46.88
	Transoral	0.03 (0.00-0.06)	.05		48.90

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; EATA, endoscopic-assisted transoral approach; TORS, transoral robotic surgery.

In addition, our results demonstrated no significant difference in recurrence rates between EATA, TORS, and the conventional transoral approach [0.05 (0.01-0.08) vs 0.03 (0.00-0.06) vs 0.03 (0.00-0.06); P = .73; Table 5 and Supplemental Figure 12]. A low interstudy heterogeneity was also observed across all the subgroups (I² = 0%)

Secondary Outcomes

The pooled results revealed that transoral approaches were associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss (MD: −104.30 mL; P < .00001) and a shorter length of hospitalization (MD: −1.70 days; P = .002) compared to EAs. However, no significant difference in operation time was observed between the transoral approaches and EAs groups (MD: −12.66 minutes; P = .28).

Quality of Included Studies

The summary of the quality appraisal of the included studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale is presented in Supplemental Table 3. Overall, all studies had fair methodological quality. Regarding the representativeness of the exposed cohort, we did not assign any stars to the studies, as they were all single-center studies. Also, none of the studies adjusted for confounders and thus did not receive a score under the comparability domain.

Discussion

The management of PPST is challenging due to the complex anatomy, proximity to neurovascular structures, and diverse pathology.^65
-67 Nonetheless, surgical excision has been the preferred treatment for over 95% of patients with PPST.^2
-4 The choice of approach often requires careful consideration to ensure complete tumor resection while minimizing the risk of morbidity. Therefore, the current meta-analysis investigated whether surgical outcomes differ between transoral approaches, including the conventional transoral approach, EATA, and TORS, and the conventional EAs.

We used broader inclusion criteria than those in earlier meta-analyses investigating postoperative outcomes with surgical approaches to manage PPST, allowing us to pool data from a larger number of studies (n = 48). For comparison, De Virgilio et al¹² included 22 studies to investigate the clinical outcomes of PPST treated by TORS, Chen et al¹³ included 7 studies to compare the clinical outcomes with EATA and EAs, and Faisal et al¹⁴ pooled data from 13 studies to identify the determinants of postoperative neurological complications of benign PPST with surgical approaches in general.

As a result, we categorized and compared the overall, neurological, and non-neurological outcomes of patients with PPST after surgical interventions using transoral and external approaches. This categorization provided a clearer definition of the distinct and complex anatomy in which critical neurovascular structures are located.¹ Given that neurological complications can have serious implications on long-term morbidity, functional outcomes, and quality of life,⁵ delineating complications that affect neural structures, such as the cranial nerves, the sympathetic chain, and other major vessels, can help correlate clinical relevance with our findings. Our analysis shows that transoral approaches were associated with a lower incidence of postoperative complications than EAs. Specifically, we noted a lower incidence of neurological complications with transoral approaches. In line with our findings that transoral approaches may offer a safer alternative to EAs in preserving neurological function, earlier studies by Ducic et al³¹ indicate that transoral approaches require less dissection of the neural structures.

We also conducted a subgroup analyses of postoperative complications based on tumor classification. When categorized by tumor behavior, patients with both benign and malignant tumors responded more favorably in terms of the rate of overall postoperative complications with transoral approaches than with EAs. This is an important finding, as many clinicians consider transoral approaches, such as TORS, unsuitable for excising malignant tumors,^12,51 perhaps due to the greater risk of capsular violation with malignant compared to benign tumors. Chan et al⁶⁸ noted that 24% of the patients with pleomorphic adenomas in the PPS had unintended capsule violation or tumor fragmentation with TORS based on a case series of 44 patients. On the other hand, Boyce et al²² reported 3 cases (17.6%) of capsular rupture, 1 involving basal cell adenoma and 2 involving pleomorphic adenoma, among 17 patients with PPST treated with TORS. However, in a more recent case series of 53 patients with PPST, Chu et al²⁹ used TORS to surgically manage 7 patients, of which 2 had malignant tumors, without any cases of capsule violation or tumor fragmentation. In comparison, capsule violation was reported in 1 of the 22 patients treated with the transcervical approach.

Moreover, malignant tumors tend to invade surrounding neurovascular structures, such as the carotid artery and cranial nerves, or spread to adjacent compartments; therefore, they often require extensive resection to attain clear margins, thus increasing the risk of complications regardless of surgical approach.¹ While our analysis did not specifically assess capsule violation, it does provide robust evidence for the lower risk of complication with transoral approaches for both benign and malignant PPST. We did not observe any differences in overall, neurological, or non-neurological postoperative complications between the different transoral approaches (ie, conventional, EATA, TORS).

Furthermore, we conducted a subgroup analysis by the anatomical site of the tumor, which indicated that transoral approaches were associated with lower rates of postoperative complications compared to EAs when used to excise prestyloid tumors. However, no difference in postoperative complications was noted between the 2 approaches for poststyloid tumors. The poststyloid compartment contains critical neurovascular structures, such as the carotid artery, internal jugular veins, cranial nerves IX-XII, and the sympathetic chain.¹ Therefore, tumors in this compartment necessitate resection closer to or around these critical structures, increasing the risk of complications.

Among our secondary outcomes, transoral approaches were associated with significantly lower intraoperative blood loss and shorter hospitalization duration than EAs, albeit with comparable intraoperative duration. These findings are generally consistent with earlier studies. A systematic review by Chen et al¹³ reported lower blood loss (−89.02 mL vs −104.30 mL in the current study) and shorter duration of postoperative hospitalization (−2.44 days vs 1.70 in the current study) with EATA compared to EA. However, in contrast to our study, Chen et al¹³ also reported significantly shorter operative time with EATA (−5.56 min) than EA. It is important to note that while Chen et al¹³ compared EATA with EA, the current study compared all transoral approaches with EA. In another systematic review, Chan et al⁶⁸ reported a mean operative time of 157 minutes, a blood loss of 58.2 mL, and a mean length of hospitalization of 3.0 days for TORS. However, they did not compare these outcomes with EAs or any other transoral approaches.

Implications of Our Findings

The conventional transoral approach is often discredited by many surgeons for the treatment of PPST, given its association with high risk of bleeding, cranial nerve damage, tumor spillage, and reduced exposure based on evidence from over 2 decades ago.^69
-71 However, more recent evidence suggests that the transoral approach offers advantages, including the absence of visible neck scars, shorter postoperative hospital stays, and shorter operation times compared to EAs,^33,35 which is further supported by our meta-analysis, except for operation time, which was not significantly different in our analysis. This indicates improved clinical outcomes with the transoral approaches over time, potentially due to factors such as technological advancement and experience with this modality for treating PPST.^72,73 The choice of transoral surgical approach likely requires careful consideration of the surgeon’s expertise and tumor characteristics while incorporating patient-centered decision-making.

While the current meta-analysis did not compare tumor rupture between transoral and EAs, the risk of tumor rupture is a biologically and clinically important event in PPST because it has been associated with increased risk of recurrence, particularly in pleomorphic adenoma.⁴³ Lim et al found that intraoperative spillage of pleomorphic adenomas occurred in 13.6% of patients treated with conventional EAs and 15.4% of patients treated with TORS, suggesting that there is no significant difference between transoral and EAs in terms of tumor spillage.⁴³ However, due to the lack of comparisons in other included studies, future research should strive to evaluate this important event for better comparisons.

From a practical standpoint, our findings suggest that EATA and TORS might be suitable for the excision of benign or malignant PPST in select patients, particularly those with PPST located in the prestyloid region, and in centers with expertise in advanced transoral surgery. These findings align with the recommendations of previous meta-analyses, which noted that EATA¹³ and TORS¹² are safe, minimally invasive, and aesthetic surgical modalities for PPST. However, patient selection is a crucial determinant of success with EATA surgery, and this may not be the preferred modality for patients who have PPST in the postsyloid compartment if the tumor location presents limited exposure space for visualization of the great vessels or if there is an increased risk of tumor spillage or neurovascular damage.¹³ Furthermore, TORS may have additional disadvantages as the first-line treatment option for PPST, such as the surgeon’s expertise, lack of haptic feedback in older systems, availability, and higher cost.^2,22,68,74

Strengths and Limitations

The strength of the current systematic review and meta-analysis lies in its high statistical power, which is attributed to the inclusion of a large number of studies with a pooled participant size of 1728. For comparison, earlier studies by Riffat et al,² Kuet et al,³ De Virgilio et al,¹² and Chen et al¹³ included 17, 22, 22, and 7 studies with 1143, 1293, 113, and 318 patients, respectively. Another key strength of our study is that we categorized postoperative complications according to the tumor type and location. Such granular analysis yielded valuable insights for patient-specific management and the development of evidence-based guidelines for the surgical management of PPST. Future research should include surveys of current practices and surgeon attitudes toward management of PPST, which would provide complementary insights to our findings.

The current study has several significant limitations. First, there may be publication bias in existing literature reporting favorable outcomes with technically advanced or minimally invasive approaches. Second, there is potential case-selection bias as smaller or less complex tumors are more often managed using transoral approaches. Similarly, surgeon and center-level bias likely exists, since transoral resections are typically performed in tertiary, high-volume centers with greater expertise in robotic and endoscopic surgery. Third, the number of patients and events in our recurrence analysis was small. This introduced a risk of type II (beta) error and limits the interpretation of recurrence rates. Fourth, the reliability of reporting on intraoperative variables, such as tumor rupture or spillage, is likely poor due to inconsistent documentation across studies.

Other notable limitations include that the studies included in our analysis were predominantly retrospective (n = 39/48), which introduces an inherent bias. Moreover, most studies included in our analysis had small sample sizes (mean: 36, 95% CI: 16.73-52.73). Thus, there is a need for more large-scale prospective level 1 evidence to guide evidence-based findings. Second, significant heterogeneity was noted in most statistical analyses. This heterogeneity might be attributed to differences in sample size, histopathological diagnosis, and surgical techniques. However, a random-effects model was used to pool these results and provide conservative estimates. Third, we used the prestyloid and poststyloid spaces to assess the PPST location; however, PPS anatomy is more complex and can be further divided into the pharyngeal mucosal space, the masticator space, and the parotid space.¹ Finally, we did not retrieve records published in languages other than English, which could have inadvertently led to selection bias.

Conclusion

The current meta-analysis showed that transoral surgical approaches resulted in fewer postoperative neurologic complications, less intraoperative bleeding, and shorter hospitalization duration than conventional EAs, especially for tumors located in the prestyloid compartment. These novel findings can inform surgical decision-making in selected patients, particularly when performed in centers with expertise in advanced transoral surgery while maintaining careful attention to individualized, patient-centered care.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ohn-10.1177_19160216251414008 – Supplemental material for Clinical Outcomes with Transoral and External Surgical Approaches for Resection of Parapharyngeal Space Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ohn-10.1177_19160216251414008 for Clinical Outcomes with Transoral and External Surgical Approaches for Resection of Parapharyngeal Space Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Arshbir Aulakh, Mankirat Gillon, Brendan D. McNeely, Cameron Bakala and Ciaran Lane in Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

Footnotes

Author Contributions

All authors had access to the data and contributed significantly to writing the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

ORCID iDs

Arshbir Aulakh

Brendan D. McNeely

Supplemental Material

Additional supporting information is available in the online version of the article.

References

Stambuk

Patel

. Imaging of the parapharyngeal space. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2008;41(1):77-101, vi. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2007.10.012

Riffat

Dwivedi

Palme

Fish

Jani

. A systematic review of 1143 parapharyngeal space tumors reported over 20 years. Oral Oncol. 2014;50(5):421-430. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.02.007

Kuet

Kasbekar

Masterson

Jani

. Management of tumors arising from the parapharyngeal space: A systematic review of 1,293 cases reported over 25 years. Laryngoscope. 2015;125(6):1372-1381. doi:10.1002/lary.25077

Jiang

Wang

Chen

Liu

. Management of parapharyngeal space tumors: clinical experience with a large sample and review of the literature. Curr Oncol. 2023;30(1):1020-1031. doi:10.3390/curroncol30010078

Bulut

Giger

Alwagdani

, et al. Primary neoplasms of the parapharyngeal space: diagnostic and therapeutic pearls and pitfalls. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;278(12):4933-4941. doi:10.1007/s00405-021-06718-4

van Hees

van Weert

Witte

Rene Leemans

. Tumors of the parapharyngeal space: the VU University Medical Center experience over a 20-year period. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275(4):967-972. doi:10.1007/s00405-018-4891-x

Shirakura

Tsunoda

Akita

, et al. Parapharyngeal space tumors: anatomical and image analysis findings. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2010;37(5):621-625. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2010.01.003

Ferrari

Schreiber

Mattavelli

, et al. Surgical anatomy of the parapharyngeal space: multiperspective, quantification-based study. Head Neck. 2019;41(3):642-656. doi:10.1002/hed.25378

Larson

Ryan

. Transoral excision of parapharyngeal space tumors. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2021;54(3):531-541. doi:10.1016/j.otc.2021.03.001

10.

Meng

Zhong

Fang

Wang

Wei

. Early experience in endoscopic transoral resection for parapharyngeal space tumors. Ear Nose Throat J. 2018;97(4-5):E5-E9. doi:10.1177/0145561318097004-501

11.

Maglione

Guida

Pavone

, et al. Transoral robotic surgery of parapharyngeal space tumours: a series of four cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47(8):971-975. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2018.01.008

12.

De Virgilio

Costantino

Mercante

Di Maio

Iocca

Spriano

. Trans-oral robotic surgery in the management of parapharyngeal space tumors: a systematic review. Oral Oncol. 2020;103:104581. doi:10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104581

13.

Chen

, et al. Endoscopy-assisted transoral approach to resect parapharyngeal space tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(10):2246-2253. doi:10.1002/lary.29458

14.

Faisal

Seemann

Fischer

, et al. Neurological complications in benign parapharyngeal space tumors—systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2023;27(1):e158-e165. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1744164

15.

Stang

. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603-605. doi:10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z

16.

Higgins

Thompson

Deeks

Altman

. Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7(1):51-61. doi:10.1258/1355819021927674

17.

Higgins

Thompson

Deeks

Altman

. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

18.

Aghazadeh

Mohammadtaghi

Rikhtegar

Sharifi

Hashemiaghdam

Hashem Zade

. Surgical approaches to benign parapharyngeal space tumors-5-year experience. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;32(108):43-48. doi:10.22038/ijorl.2019.38350.2268

19.

Al Zadjali

Chabrillac

Vergez

. Surgical approaches for pleomorphic adenoma of the parapharyngeal space. J Laryngol Otol. 2023;137(7):741-748. doi:10.1017/S002221512200175X

20.

Basaran

Polat

Unsaler

Ulusan

Aslan

Hafiz

. Parapharyngeal space tumours: the efficiency of a transcervical approach without mandibulotomy through review of 44 cases. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2014;34(5):310-316.

21.

Betka

Chovanec

Klozar

, et al. Transoral and combined transoral-transcervical approach in the surgery of parapharyngeal tumors. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2010;267(5):765-772. doi:10.1007/s00405-009-1071-z

22.

Boyce

Curry

Luginbuhl

Cognetti

. Transoral robotic approach to parapharyngeal space tumors: case series and technical limitations. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(8):1776-1782. doi:10.1002/lary.25929

23.

Bozza

Vigili

Ruscito

Marzetti

. Surgical management of parapharyngeal space tumours: results of 10-year follow-up. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2009;29(1):10-15.

24.

Chandra

Prasad

Sudha

Ashok

Parasuram

. Management of parapharyngeal space tumours by transcervical and transoral approaches—a case series. Eur J Cardiovasc Med. 2024;14(1):515-519. doi:10.5083/ejcm

25.

Chang

Goldenberg

Koch

. Transcervical approach to benign parapharyngeal space tumors. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121(9):620-624. doi:10.1177/000348941212100910

26.

Chen

Fan

Huang

Zhang

. Endoscopy-assisted transoral versus endoscopy-assisted transcervical minimal incision plus mandibular osteotomy approach in resection of large parapharyngeal space tumors. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(4):976-979. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003478

27.

Chen

Wang

Zhang

Huang

. Endoscopy-assisted transoral resection of large benign parapharyngeal space tumors. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;52(10):970-973. doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2014.08.002

28.

Chen

, et al. Excision of tumors in the parapharyngeal space using an endoscopically assisted transoral approach: a case series and literature review. J Int Med Res. 2019;47(3):1103-1113. doi:10.1177/0300060518816190

29.

Chu

Tagliabue

Giugliano

Calabrese

Preda

Ansarin

. From transmandibular to transoral robotic approach for parapharyngeal space tumors. Am J Otolaryngol. 2017;38(4):375-379. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2017.03.004

30.

Das

Parveen

Sarkar

Rahaman

. Parapharyngeal tumours: our experience in a Tertiary Care Hospital. Bengal J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;28(3):266-272. doi:10.47210/bjohns.2020.v28i3.313

31.

Ducic

Oxford

Pontius

. Transoral approach to the superomedial parapharyngeal space. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;134(3):466-470. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2005.10.003

32.

Fan

Lin

Zhang

, et al. A comparative study of the endoscopy-assisted transoral approach versus external approaches for the resection of large benign parapharyngeal space tumors. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2017;123(2):157-162. doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2016.09.010

33.

Fan

, et al. Use of propensity score matching to compare short outcomes from transoral and external surgical approaches in patients with deep-lobe parotid pleomorphic adenomas. Curr Oncol. 2021;28(4):3115-3123. doi:10.3390/curroncol28040272

34.

Fermi

Serafini

Ferri

Alicandri-Ciufelli

Presutti

Mattioli

. Management of parapharyngeal space tumors with transparotid-transcervical approach: analysis of prognostic factors related with disease-control and functional outcomes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;279(5):2631-2639. doi:10.1007/s00405-021-07074-z

35.

Galli

Rolesi

Gallus

, et al. Parapharyngeal space tumors: our experience. J Pers Med. 2023;13(2):283. doi:10.3390/jpm13020283

36.

Goodwin

Jr. Chandler

. Transoral excision of lateral parapharyngeal space tumors presenting intraorally. Laryngoscope. 1988;98(3):266-269. doi:10.1288/00005537-198803000-00005

37.

Guo

Sun

Yin

, et al. A Retrospective analysis on the effects and complications of endoscope-assisted transoral approach and lateral cervical approach in the resection of parapharyngeal space tumors. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2022;2022:7536330. doi:10.1155/2022/7536330

38.

Horowitz

Ben-Ari

Wasserzug

Weizman

Yehuda

Fliss

. The transcervical approach for parapharyngeal space pleomorphic adenomas: indications and technique. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e90210. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090210

39.

Krishnappa

Nikisha

. Transoral endoscopic approach versus transcervical with or without mandibular swing approach to parapharyngeal space—a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary care center in Tamil Nadu. Int J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;6(11):2022. doi:10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20204625

40.

Laccourreye

Gaultier

Haroun

Mirghani

. Cervical approach for prestyloid parapharyngeal pleomorphic adenoma resection. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis. 2024;141(5):292-296. doi:10.1016/j.anorl.2024.03.005

41.

London

Jr. Gao

Carrau

Chen

. Endoscopic transoral approach for resection of retrostyloid parapharyngeal space tumors: retrospective analysis of 16 patients. Head Neck. 2020;42(12):3531-3537. doi:10.1002/hed.26415

42.

Hsu

Chen

. Minimally invasive endoscope-assisted trans-oral excision of huge parapharyngeal space tumors. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42(2):179-182. doi:10.1016/j.anl.2014.10.010

43.

Lim

Park

Kang

, et al. Comparison of surgical outcomes of robotic and conventional approaches in patients with pre- and poststyloid parapharyngeal space tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27(11):4535-4543. doi:10.1245/s10434-020-08536-0

44.

Luna-Ortiz

Navarrete-Aleman

Granados-Garcia

Herrera-Gomez

. Primary parapharyngeal space tumors in a Mexican cancer center. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;132(4):587-591. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2005.01.013

45.

Luna-Ortiz

Villa-Zepeda

Carrillo

Molina-Frias

Gomez-Pedraza

. Parapharyngeal space tumor: submandibular approach without mandibulotomy. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2018;17(4):616-624. doi:10.1007/s12663-018-1133-0

46.

Malone

Agrawal

Schuller

. Safety and efficacy of transcervical resection of parapharyngeal space neoplasms. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2001;110(12):1093-1098. doi:10.1177/000348940111001202

47.

Markou

Blioskas

Krommydas

Psillas

Karkos

. Transoral resection of giant parapharyngeal space tumors via a combined surgical approach. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;31(103):87-96. doi:10.22038/ijorl.2018.27837.1911

48.

Matsuki

Okamoto

Tada

, et al. Resection of parapharyngeal space tumors located in the prestyloid compartment: efficacy of the cervical approach. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(6):3066-3072. doi:10.1245/s10434-020-09268-x

49.

Motta

Testa

Donadio

, et al. Transoral approach to parapharyngeal space tumours: preliminary reports from a single-centre retrospective analysis. Curr Oncol. 2023;30(4):3927-3939. doi:10.3390/curroncol30040297

50.

Nonaka

Fukushima

Watanabe

Sakai

Friedman

Zomorodi

. Middle infratemporal fossa less invasive approach for radical resection of parapharyngeal tumors: surgical microanatomy and clinical application. Neurosurg Rev. 2016;39(1):87-96; discussion 96-7. doi:10.1007/s10143-015-0655-x

51.

O’Malley

Jr. Quon

Leonhardt

Chalian

Weinstein

. Transoral robotic surgery for parapharyngeal space tumors. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2010;72(6):332-336. doi:10.1159/000320596

52.

Orlando

Locatello

Gallo

Leopardi

Maggiore

. Endoscopy-assisted transoral approach for parapharyngeal space tumors: our experience and a systematic review of the literature. World J Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023;9(1):79-90. doi:10.1002/wjo2.55

53.

Panda

Sikka

Thakar

Sharma

Krishnamurthy

. Transoral robotic surgery for the parapharyngeal space: expanding the transoral corridor. J Robot Surg. 2020;14(1):61-67. doi:10.1007/s11701-019-00932-3

54.

Papadogeorgakis

Petsinis

Goutzanis

Kostakis

Alexandridis

. Parapharyngeal space tumors: surgical approaches in a series of 13 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(3):243-250. doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2009.11.011

55.

Park

De Virgilio

Kim

Chung

Kim

. Parapharyngeal space surgery via a transoral approach using a robotic surgical system: transoral robotic surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2013;23(3):231-236. doi:10.1089/lap.2012.0197

56.

Patadia

Keshri

. Benign parapharyngeal tumours: surgical intricacies by transcervical approach. Otolaryngology. 2016;06(01):1000219. doi:10.4172/2161-119x.1000219

57.

Poletti

Dubey

Colombo

Cugini

. Surgical management of parapharyngeal space tumors: the role of cervical and lateral skull base approaches. Ear Nose Throat J. 2016;95(12):E1-E6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27929599

58.

Pradhan

Preetam

Parida

Samal

. Surgical management of parapharyngeal space tumours in a single Tertiary Care Center. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;70(4):531-537. doi:10.1007/s12070-018-1447-8

59.

Presutti

Molteni

Malve

, et al. Parapharyngeal space tumors without mandibulotomy: our experience. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;269(1):265-273. doi:10.1007/s00405-011-1594-y

60.

Schlieve

Carlson

Freeman

Buckley

Arnold

. The double mandibular osteotomy for vascular and tumor surgery of the parapharyngeal space. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(5):1046-1061. doi:10.1016/j.joms.2016.11.003

61.

Sharma

Panda

Bakshi

Shrestha

. Transoral robotic approach to parapharyngeal space tumors: changes in paradigm of surgery. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;76(5):4974-4978. doi:10.1007/s12070-024-04853-y

62.

Viros Porcuna

Pardo Munoz

Vina Soria

Nicastro

Palau Viarnes

Pollan Guisasola

. A retrospective analysis of surgery in prestyloid parapharyngeal tumors: lateral approaches vs transoral robotic surgery. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2021;6(5):1062-1067. doi:10.1002/lio2.662

63.

Wang

Gong

Pan

Luo

Sun

. Endoscopy-assisted transoral resection of parapharyngeal space tumors: a retrospective analysis. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015;71(2):1157-1163. doi:10.1007/s12013-014-0323-8

64.

Zhu

Shi

Zhou

, et al. Trends in the surgical management of parapharyngeal space tumors: a single-center retrospective analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;49(1):47-54. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2022.08.016

65.

Fernandes

Lobo

Castro

Oliveira

Som

. Anatomy and pathology of the masticator space. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(5):605-616. doi:10.1007/s13244-013-0266-4

66.

Zhang

Liu

, et al. The pre-styloid compartment of the parapharyngeal space: a three-dimensional digitized model based on the Chinese Visible Human. Surg Radiol Anat. 2004;26(5):411-416. doi:10.1007/s00276-004-0252-0

67.

Dallan

Fiacchini

Turri-Zanoni

, et al. Endoscopic-assisted transoral-transpharyngeal approach to parapharyngeal space and infratemporal fossa: focus on feasibility and lessons learned. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;273(11):3965-3972. doi:10.1007/s00405-016-4074-6

68.

Chan

Tsang

Eisele

Richmon

. Transoral robotic surgery of the parapharyngeal space: a case series and systematic review. Head Neck. 2015;37(2):293-298. doi:10.1002/hed.23557

69.

Pensak

Gluckman

Shumrick

. Parapharyngeal space tumors: an algorithm for evaluation and management. Laryngoscope. 1994;104(9):1170-1173. doi:10.1288/00005537-199409000-00022

70.

Allison

Van der Waal

Snow

. Parapharyngeal tumours: a review of 23 cases. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 1989;14(3):199-203. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2273.1989.tb00361.x

71.

Stell

Mansfield

Stoney

. Surgical approaches to tumors of the parapharyngeal space. Am J Otolaryngol. 1985;6(2):92-97. doi:10.1016/s0196-0709(85)80045-4

72.

Paderno

Piazza

Nicolai

. Recent advances in surgical management of parapharyngeal space tumors. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;23(2):83-90. doi:10.1097/MOO.0000000000000134

73.

Lopez

Suarez

Vander Poorten

, et al. Contemporary management of primary parapharyngeal space tumors. Head Neck. 2019;41(2):522-535. doi:10.1002/hed.25439

74.

Voutyrakou

Papanastasis

Chatsikian

Katrakazas

Koutsouris

. Transoral robotic surgery advantages and disadvantages: a narrative review. J Eng. 2018;2018(5):284-295. doi:10.1049/joe.2017.0409

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.33 MB