Search

Despite minimally invasive neck dissection (MIND) being popular technique, there is a paucity of literature emphasizing its safety and efficacy. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of MIND over CND techniques in treating oral/head and neck cancer. We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, from database inception to January, 2019 for the relevant studies comparing MIND and CND. Two independent reviewers performed quality check and data were extracted for primary outcomes to assess length of hospital stay, duration of surgery, intraoperative blood loss and retrieved lymph nodes. Drainage volume and duration, length of incision, satisfaction of scar and safety were the secondary outcomes. We analyzed the outcomes using standard mean differences (SMDs) and the relative risk that were pooled using random effect meta-analysis. Out of 144 studies, 17 met the final inclusion criteria. MIND technique has shown better overall efficacy with outcomes compared to CND except with duration of surgery (SMD 1.82, 95% CI 0.47-3.17). Lesser hospital stay, better nodal yield and less intra-operative blood loss was observed with MIND over CND. Duration and volume of wound drainage was comparably less in MIND with smaller length of incision. Postoperative complications were less and tolerable with MIND approach with superior cosmetic outcomes. MIND via endoscopic or robotic approach is safe and efficacious with equitable oncological outcomes in terms of lymph nodes yield compared to CND, but it requires longer surgery duration., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interestThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest., (© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2020.)