Assessment and interpretation of the status of surgical margins following resective surgery for head and neck squamous cancer: a narrative review.

K Devaraja, Alok Thakar, Vinidh Paleri

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in World journal of surgical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

K DevarajaDepartment of Head and Neck Surgery, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Udupi, Karnataka, 576104, India. devaraja.k@manipal.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8171-7393

Alok ThakarDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.

Vinidh PaleriConsultant Head and Neck Surgeon, The Royal Marsden Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, London, SW3 6JJ, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe two well-known quality-assessment metrics of head and neck oncosurgery are the status of surgical margin (SM) and lymph node yield (LNY). While the clinical importance of LNY has been well-established, several unresolved controversies around the SM have deterred its practical application.

methodsThis article reviews some of the issues with the SM and ongoing efforts to improve its clinical application and reliability.

resultsSeveral variations exist around SM, regarding its definition, designation, procurement, handling, and pathological processing, which could hinder its reliability. Until newer instruments that could improve the safety of surgical resection are validated robustly and are accessible widely, the surgeons need to adhere to the standardized approach of using the SM in clinical practice.

conclusionsUnless not available, the SM based on the surgical specimen should be given priority for all practical purposes over the tissue taken from the surgical bed; with the latter serving only as an intraoperative guide, to facilitate an appropriate margin revision whenever needed and feasible.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsLymph NodesMargins of ExcisionSquamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and NeckHumansPrognosisClose marginFrozen sectionHead and neckOral cancerOropharynxSurgical marginsSurvival outcomesTransoral robotic surgery

Identifiers

PMID40859320

DOI10.1186/s12957-025-03993-x

PMCPMC12382018

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.