Endoscopic versus conventional parotid gland excision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this review was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare endoscopic with conventional parotid tumour excision. Online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCare, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP), and the ISRCTN registry were all searched. All randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing endoscopic with conventional parotid tumour excision were included. Five studies were identified and analysis was reported in forest plots with 95% confidence intervals. Outcomes of interest included operating time, cosmesis, blood loss, facial nerve injury, Frey syndrome, duration of hospital stay, and tumour recurrence. Endoscopic tumour excision had a comparable operating time to conventional resection with an insignificant mean difference (p=0.08). Scar cosmesis in the endoscopic group was superior (mean difference: 2.95, p<0.05) and it also reported a lower volume of blood loss (mean difference: -31.84, p<0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of facial nerve injury or Frey syndrome between the two groups, but overall, fewer miscellaneous complications were observed in the endoscopic cohorts. Endoscopic parotid surgery reported a shorter duration of hospital stay, and tumour recurrence was similar in both treatment arms. Endoscopic parotid gland surgery is an effective alternative to conventional approaches with comparable operating times, reduced blood loss and fewer complications, as well as shorter inpatient stay and improved cosmesis. Further studies are, however, required with longer follow-up periods to assess outcomes between different subtypes of parotid tumour.