An objective assessment of the advantages of retrograde parotidectomy

This study was undertaken to determine whether the retrograde parotidectomy approach is more efficient than standard anterograde parotidectomy without compromise of surgical effectiveness.

A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing parotidectomy was conducted. Cases were divided into those undergoing retrograde facial nerve dissection and those undergoing standard anterograde facial nerve dissection. From the review of medical records, standard demographic information, surgical time, histopathology, estimated blood loss, and use of facial nerve monitoring were determined. Pathology was reviewed to determine the size of the overall resection specimen as well as the size of the lesion excised and margin status. Postoperative complications were also recorded. Statistical comparisons were conducted between these 2 approaches for these clinical variables such as surgical time, blood loss, tumor margin status and relative volume of tissue removed during parotidectomy.

45 patients undergoing parotidectomy met inclusion criteria. The average patient age was 50.8 years with a female preponderance (73%). There were 19 standard parotidectomies and 26 retrograde approaches. Compared to standard parotidectomy, retrograde parotidectomy consumed less operative time (3.2 versus 1.8 hours, respectively), decreased intraoperative blood loss (67.9 cc versus 40.3 cc, respectively), and resulted in less removal of normal parotid tissue (volume of normal parotid tissue removed in excess of tumor: 23.0 cc versus 6.0 cc, respectively). No significant difference in surgical margin status was noted between anterograde and retrograde parotidectomy (P = 0.452).

In appropriately selected cases, compared with standard anterograde parotidectomy, retrograde parotidectomy is more efficient and spares normal parotid tissue without compromising surgical margins. Facial nerve monitoring provides a useful adjunct for retrograde dissection.