Comparing Modified with Conventional Parotidectomy for Benign Parotid Tumors

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted a study to compare the functional outcomes and surgical complications of patients with benign parotid tumors treated with conventional parotidectomy and modified parotidectomy. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed 99 patients who had benign parotid lesions and underwent parotidectomy using either conventional or modified parotidectomy. The operation time, cosmetic outcome, great auricular nerve anesthesia, incidence of Frey syndrome, and secretory function with the two techniques were compared. Results: The mean operation time was shorter and the total complication rate was obviously lower in the modified surgery group (p < 0.001). In the modified surgery group, the incision was more cosmetic (p < 0.001), the sensory deficit rate was low (p < 0.001), and the sensory recovery rate was high, and transient facial paralysis and Frey syndrome were rare. Furthermore, glandular function was preserved in patients with a conserved Stensen duct. There was no tumor recurrence in the two groups during a mean follow-up of 29.8 months. Conclusion: Modified surgical techniques for benign parotid neoplasms significantly reduced the surgery time and improved the surgery outcomes compared with the conventional approach. This adds to the evidence to support the effectiveness of modified parotidectomy in selected patients with benign parotid tumors.

Minor Parotidectomy Complications: A Systematic Review

“…Scarring issues were reported in 46 studies 6,19,20,27,34,36,37,41,55,58,59,62–66,73,83,87,90,91,100,107,110,114,116,125,135,136,140,149,152,160,184,194,195,198,210,218–226 reporting on 5,758 patients (Table I and Fig. 2F).…”

“…Salivary fistula was reported in 137 studies 6–10,12,14–16,18–24,27,28,30–34,36,38–40,43–45,47,49,51,52,55,56,58,62–65,75,76,79,84–87,89,91,93,97–99,101,103–109,112,114–119,124–127,129,131–133,136,138,139,141,144,148–150,153,154,156,164,166,170–215 reporting on 18,815 patients (Table I and Fig. 2D).…”

“…Numbness was reported in 57 studies 17,20,24,25,34,45,50,59,62,64,65,69,72,76,78,80,85,90–92,95,104,110,116,120,125,127,136,138,140,160,164,168,194,200,203,205,206,208,210,214,217,220,222,225–238 reporting on 6,376 patients (Table I). The pooled incidence of numbness reported was 33.9% (95% CI: 25.6‐43.4), with a minimum of 0.87% and a maximum of 100% (heterogeneity I 2 = 97.6%).…”

Surgical interventions for management of benign parotid tumors: Systematic review and network meta‐analysis

“…One RCT 31 was assessed as a low risk of bias. Twenty-five studies 12,14,19,32,35,36,[38][39][40]42,44,47,49,[51][52][53][56][57][58]60,[63][64][65]68,69,71 were assessed as having moderate risk of bias, whereas the other 18 studies 14,[33][34]41,43,45,46,48,50,54,55,59,61,62,66,67,70,72 were assessed as having high risk of bias (Table S4). [32][33][34]36,40,44,…”

“…Similarly, a statistically significant less TFW was observed when ECD was compared with PSP, SP, and TP (Figure 3). Permanent facial nerve paralysis PFP was reported in 36 studies 12,14,31,19,32,35,37,[39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]51,52,[54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65]67,68,70,71 with a total of 6608 participants. Of them 14 studies were excluded because they reported 0 event in both comparisons or the PFP was unclearly reported in each comparison.…”