Masanari G Kato1,2, Evren Erkul1, Shaun A Nguyen1, Terry A Day1, Joshua D Hornig1, Eric J Lentsch1, M Boyd Gillespie1,3. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. 2. Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York. 3. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis.
Abstract
Importance: The clinical implications of extracapsular dissection over superficial parotidectomy are controversial and limited in data on cost-effectiveness. Objective: To compare extracapsular dissection with superficial parotidectomy for benign parotid tumors with respect to surgical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective medical record review and cost-effectiveness analysis performed from August 2012 to November 2015 at a tertiary care institution. Adult patients (age ≥18 years) who underwent parotidectomy for benign parotid lesions were included. Exposures: Treatment by extracapsular dissection or superficial parotidectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in postoperative complication rates and health services outcomes, including procedure time, anesthesia time, length of stay, and charges for surgeon, anesthesia, operating room, and hospital. Results: A total of 46 parotidectomies consisting of 26 extracapsular dissections and 20 superficial parotidectomies met criteria. Of the 46 patients, 33 were women. Patient ages ranged from 18 to 83 years. Lesion features were similar between groups with most being pleomorphic adenoma. Procedure time (effect size, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.93 to -0.65), anesthesia time (effect size, -1.37; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.70), and length of stay (effect size, -0.66; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.05) were significantly shorter for extracapsular dissection compared with superficial parotidectomy. Moreover, anesthesia (effect size, -1.55; 95% CI, -2.19 to -0.86), operating room (effect size, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.45), and total hospital charges (effect size, -1.13; 95% CI, -1.74 to -0.49) were significantly less for extracapsular dissection while remaining charges, including surgeon, showed no difference. Finally, facial nerve weakness, great auricular nerve dysesthesia, and other relevant postoperative complications were comparable between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In the hands of an experienced surgeon, extracapsular dissection is a shorter, less costly, and equally safe alternative to traditional superficial parotidectomy when treating benign parotid lesions. Further follow-up is needed to ensure these perceived advantages are maintained over time.
Importance: The clinical implications of extracapsular dissection over superficial parotidectomy are controversial and limited in data on cost-effectiveness. Objective: To compare extracapsular dissection with superficial parotidectomy for benign parotid tumors with respect to surgical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective medical record review and cost-effectiveness analysis performed from August 2012 to November 2015 at a tertiary care institution. Adult patients (age ≥18 years) who underwent parotidectomy for benign parotid lesions were included. Exposures: Treatment by extracapsular dissection or superficial parotidectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in postoperative complication rates and health services outcomes, including procedure time, anesthesia time, length of stay, and charges for surgeon, anesthesia, operating room, and hospital. Results: A total of 46 parotidectomies consisting of 26 extracapsular dissections and 20 superficial parotidectomies met criteria. Of the 46 patients, 33 were women. Patient ages ranged from 18 to 83 years. Lesion features were similar between groups with most being pleomorphic adenoma. Procedure time (effect size, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.93 to -0.65), anesthesia time (effect size, -1.37; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.70), and length of stay (effect size, -0.66; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.05) were significantly shorter for extracapsular dissection compared with superficial parotidectomy. Moreover, anesthesia (effect size, -1.55; 95% CI, -2.19 to -0.86), operating room (effect size, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.45), and total hospital charges (effect size, -1.13; 95% CI, -1.74 to -0.49) were significantly less for extracapsular dissection while remaining charges, including surgeon, showed no difference. Finally, facial nerve weakness, great auricular nerve dysesthesia, and other relevant postoperative complications were comparable between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In the hands of an experienced surgeon, extracapsular dissection is a shorter, less costly, and equally safe alternative to traditional superficial parotidectomy when treating benign parotid lesions. Further follow-up is needed to ensure these perceived advantages are maintained over time.
Authors: Georgios Psychogios; Christopher Bohr; Jannis Constantinidis; Martin Canis; Vincent Vander Poorten; Jan Plzak; Andreas Knopf; Christian Betz; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Johannes Zenk Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-08-04 Impact factor: 2.503