OBJECTIVE: Sensory disturbance due to excision of the great auricular nerve in patients who have undergone parotidectomy sometimes causes discomfort to the patients. In order to reduce the postoperative discomfort of the pinna, we tried to preserve the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve. METHODS: Forty patients with parotid tumor were included in this study. Twenty-one of these patients had pleomorphic adenoma, 16 had adenolymphoma and 3 had a low grade malignant tumor. Sensations of the pinna and the quality of life (QOL) after parotidectomy were evaluated using a 0-100 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) assessed at 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and 6 months after parotidectomy. RESULTS: The posterior branch of the great auricular nerve was preserved in 26 out of 40 patients (65%). No difference was observed in the incidence of complications except sensory disturbance of the pinna with this surgical procedure as compared to the surgical technique where the great auricular nerve was excised. The VAS score for the sensation was significantly higher in the group of patients whose great auricular nerve was preserved at 2 months (35.0+/-20.8 vs. 18.5+/-9.2), 3 months (64.4+/-18.3 vs. 26.4+/-13.8) and 6 months (66.9+/-16.2 vs. 26.6+/-11.4) after parotidectomy. The VAS score for the QOL was also significantly higher in the group of patients whose great auricular nerve was preserved at 2 months (50.3+/-21.8 vs. 35.1+/-14.5), 3 months (69.5+/-27.5 vs. 45.9+/-22.6) as well as 6 months (71.9+/-24.1 vs. 45.7+/-19.1) after parotidectomy. CONCLUSION: Preservation of the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve during parotidectomy is valuable in order to reduce the postoperative sensory disturbance of the pinna that follows conventional surgery. It further helps to improve the QOL of these patients after parotidectomy.
OBJECTIVE: Sensory disturbance due to excision of the great auricular nerve in patients who have undergone parotidectomy sometimes causes discomfort to the patients. In order to reduce the postoperative discomfort of the pinna, we tried to preserve the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve. METHODS: Forty patients with parotid tumor were included in this study. Twenty-one of these patients had pleomorphic adenoma, 16 had adenolymphoma and 3 had a low grade malignant tumor. Sensations of the pinna and the quality of life (QOL) after parotidectomy were evaluated using a 0-100 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) assessed at 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months and 6 months after parotidectomy. RESULTS: The posterior branch of the great auricular nerve was preserved in 26 out of 40 patients (65%). No difference was observed in the incidence of complications except sensory disturbance of the pinna with this surgical procedure as compared to the surgical technique where the great auricular nerve was excised. The VAS score for the sensation was significantly higher in the group of patients whose great auricular nerve was preserved at 2 months (35.0+/-20.8 vs. 18.5+/-9.2), 3 months (64.4+/-18.3 vs. 26.4+/-13.8) and 6 months (66.9+/-16.2 vs. 26.6+/-11.4) after parotidectomy. The VAS score for the QOL was also significantly higher in the group of patients whose great auricular nerve was preserved at 2 months (50.3+/-21.8 vs. 35.1+/-14.5), 3 months (69.5+/-27.5 vs. 45.9+/-22.6) as well as 6 months (71.9+/-24.1 vs. 45.7+/-19.1) after parotidectomy. CONCLUSION: Preservation of the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve during parotidectomy is valuable in order to reduce the postoperative sensory disturbance of the pinna that follows conventional surgery. It further helps to improve the QOL of these patients after parotidectomy.
Authors: Antonio Moretti; Leonardo Citraro; Anna Grazia Petrucci; Pamela Di Giovanni; Roberta Di Mauro; Pier Giorgio Giacomini Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-11-08 Impact factor: 2.503