Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 27, 2026

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

Quality indicators in head and neck operations: a comparison with published benchmarks.

Thomas D Shellenberger¹, Rafael Madero-Visbal, Randal S Weber

¹Head and Neck Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center Orlando, 1400 S Orange Ave, Orlando, FL 32806, USA. thomas.shellenberger@orlandohealth.com

Archives of Otolaryngology--Head & Neck Surgery

|November 23, 2011

Summary

Surgical quality indicators are reproducible in head and neck cancer care. This study found no significant differences in quality measures for head and neck cancer operations when compared to benchmarks.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Sinonasal biphasic seromucinous adenocarcinomas: a report of two morphologically distinct cases with multimodal omics characterization.

Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology·2026

Same author

Intestinal-Type Adenocarcinoma in Head and Neck: Dissecting Oncogenic Gene Alterations Through Whole Transcriptome and Exome Analysis.

Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc·2023

Same author

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume.

Annals of surgical oncology·2022

Same author

Long-Term Update of NRG/RTOG 0522: A Randomized Phase 3 Trial of Concurrent Radiation and Cisplatin With or Without Cetuximab in Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Cancer.

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics·2022

Same author

Outcomes for recurrent oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.

Oral oncology·2022

Same author

Primary and recurrent regional metastases for lateralized oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma.

Surgical oncology·2022

Area of Science:

Oncology
Surgical Quality Improvement
Health Services Research

Background:

Head and neck cancer treatment involves complex surgical procedures.
Assessing the quality of care is crucial for patient outcomes.
Reproducibility of quality indicators needs validation in this specific patient population.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate the reproducibility of surgical quality indicators in head and neck cancer care.
To compare quality indicator measures against established benchmarks.
To stratify surgical procedures by acuity for analysis.

Main Methods:

A review of specialty-specific surgical quality indicators was conducted.
Data from 21 patients undergoing definitive surgical treatment for head and neck cancer were analyzed.

More Related Videos

Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cavity Cancer: This is the Way

Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cavity Cancer: This is the Way

Published on: May 10, 2021

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 27, 2026

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible

Published on: January 28, 2020

Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cavity Cancer: This is the Way

Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cavity Cancer: This is the Way

Published on: May 10, 2021

Procedures were stratified by high and low acuity and compared to benchmarks.

Main Results:

No statistically significant differences were observed in quality indicator measures between the patient cohort and benchmarks.
Common diagnoses included oral cavity, oropharynx, and larynx carcinomas.
Both high- and low-acuity surgical procedures were evaluated.

Conclusions:

Surgical quality indicators are applicable to head and neck cancer care.
The study demonstrates the reproducibility of these indicators when stratified by surgical acuity.
Findings support the use of quality indicators for monitoring and improving care in this field.