Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 30, 2025
Learning Modern Laryngeal Surgery in a Dissection Laboratory
Published on: March 18, 2020
Pediatric Robotic Laryngeal Cleft Repair
Cameron P Worden1, Andrew C Prince1, Samuel N Kirse1
1Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Objective:
Compare surgical and swallow outcomes in robotic versus traditional laryngeal cleft (LC) repairs.
Study Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting:
Tertiary care pediatric hospital.
Methods:
Pediatric patients who underwent robotic or traditional (open or endoscopic) LC repair between 2010 and 2021 were identified. Patient characteristics, operative times, adverse events, hospital length of stay (LOS), and modified barium swallow study (MBSS) results were compared.
Results:
Eighteen robotic and thirty traditional LC repairs were identified. Mean surgical (149 vs 111 min, P < .05) and OR times (207 vs 139 min, P < .002) were increased for robotic type I LC repairs, but were similar for type II and III LC. Mean hospital LOS was increased for robotic type I LC repairs (2.6 vs 1.2 days, P < .006), but was decreased for type II (4 vs 12.2 days) and type III (4.3 vs 94.5 days) LC. Postoperative MBSS results were improved for robotic type I LC repairs at 12 months (82% vs 43%, P = .05), and trended toward improvement at 6 months for type II (75% vs 22%), and type III (67% vs 50%) LC repairs, although significance was limited for type II and III LC due to the number of subjects. A robotic approach was used successfully to revise all recurrent LC that failed traditional repairs.
Conclusion:
Robotic type 1 LC repairs demonstrated increased operative times and hospital LOS but improved postoperative swallow outcomes compared to traditional approaches may be particularly useful in cases of recurrent clefts.
