Reconstructive techniques of the parotid region

The aim of our study was to evaluate and check (analyze and compare the results) the complications of patients with benign parotid disease reconstructed with the 3 reconstructive techniques used after the removal of benign tumors of the parotid gland treated at our institution. The reconstruction of this anatomical region may include the use of superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) flap, flap of sternocleidomastoid muscle, and temporoparietal fascia flap to prevent aesthetic and functional complications.

We carried out a retrospective review of 224 patients operated on between February 2002 and March 2009 with benign primary parotid tumors. Extracapsular dissection or superficial parotidectomy was performed and then these patients were reconstructed with the 3 techniques that we used to apply at the Department of Maxillofacial Surgery in the University Federico 2 of Naples: the SMAS flap, flap of sternocleidomastoid muscle, and temporoparietal fascia flap. The statistical difference between the extracapsular dissection versus superficial parotidectomy and the statistical difference between the 3 types of flaps as concerns evaluated recurrence rate and complications were measured with the χ test. The chosen level of statistical significance was P less than 0.05.

Out of the 224 enrolled patients, 103 were women and 121 men, with an average age of 54 years. After histopathological examination, 136 adenomas and 88 cystadenoma lymphomas were diagnosed. Enucleoresection was the surgical technique adopted in 169 cases while superficial parotidectomy was used in the remaining 55 cases. The reconstruction was performed with SMAS flap in 122 patients, with muscle flap SMC in 66 patients and temporoparietal fascia flap in 36 patients. Table 1 shows that no significant differences as concerns hematoma and wound infection were observed after extracapsular dissection and superficial parotidectomy(1.8% vs.1.8% [P > 0.05] and 1.8% vs. 5.5% [P > 0.05]). Transient facial nerve weakness, fistula, dip skin, Frey syndrome, spinal nerve injury, and facial paralysis were significantly more frequent after superficial parotidectomy than after extracapsular dissection (4.1% vs. 27.3% [P < 0.001], 1.8% vs. 10.9% [P < 0.001], 3% vs. 12.7% [P < 0.001], 0% vs. 5.5% [P < 0.001], 0% vs. 3.6% [P < 0.001], and 0% vs. 9.1% [P < 0.001], respectively). Table 3 shows that the presence of Frey syndrome is statistically significant in the first 2 comparisons, group I against group IV and group II against group V, respectively (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01). And in the first comparison between group I and IV, there was a statistically significant presence of transient facial nerve weakness (P < 0.001), fistula (P < 0.001), dip skin (P < 0.05), and facial paralysis (P < 0.001). In the second comparison between group II and group V besides the presence of Frey syndrome, there is also a statistically significant presence of transient facial nerve weakness (P < 0.05), skin depression (P < 0.05), accessory spinal nerve injury (P < 0. 01), and facial paralysis (P < 0.01). In the comparison between the third and the sixth group, there is a statistically significant presence of transient facial nerve weakness (P < 0.05), fistula (P < 0.01), and facial paralysis(P < 0.05).

Extracapsular dissection showed similar effectiveness and fewer side effects than superficial parotidectomy, and the 3 reconstruction techniques used in this trial drastically reduce the occurrence of post-parotidectomy Frey syndrome and greatly reduce functional and aesthetic complications.