OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Description of a novel use of a submandibular gland (SMG) flap pedicled on the facial vessels to restore facial volume after parotidectomy, and comparison of clinical outcomes with alternative modes of reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: The surgical technique for a SMG flap is described. Retrospective chart review of cases of parotidectomy at a single tertiary medical center was conducted (n = 43). Cases were grouped in three cohorts of consecutive patients depending on reconstruction technique: SMG flap (n = 13), sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) flap (n = 15), and no flap (n = 15). Cohort characteristics and complication rates are reported. RESULTS: The SMG flap was more often used for a malignant pathology (92%) and in conjunction with a neck dissection (100%), compared to the SCM flap (47% and 15%) or no flap (0% and 0%), respectively. The mean House-Brackmann score in the immediate postoperative period in the SMG-flap group was slightly elevated compared to the other groups: 1.6 (standard deviation [SD] ± 0.5) versus 1.1 (SD ± 0.3) and 1.0 (SD ± 0.0). Otherwise, the complication rate was similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: The SMG flap is a safe and effective option for volume restoration after parotidectomy. It provides durable volume that will not atrophy and is already exposed in the field of dissection for patients undergoing concurrent level I neck dissection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 130:E155-E162, 2020.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Description of a novel use of a submandibular gland (SMG) flap pedicled on the facial vessels to restore facial volume after parotidectomy, and comparison of clinical outcomes with alternative modes of reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. METHODS: The surgical technique for a SMG flap is described. Retrospective chart review of cases of parotidectomy at a single tertiary medical center was conducted (n = 43). Cases were grouped in three cohorts of consecutive patients depending on reconstruction technique: SMG flap (n = 13), sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM) flap (n = 15), and no flap (n = 15). Cohort characteristics and complication rates are reported. RESULTS: The SMG flap was more often used for a malignant pathology (92%) and in conjunction with a neck dissection (100%), compared to the SCM flap (47% and 15%) or no flap (0% and 0%), respectively. The mean House-Brackmann score in the immediate postoperative period in the SMG-flap group was slightly elevated compared to the other groups: 1.6 (standard deviation [SD] ± 0.5) versus 1.1 (SD ± 0.3) and 1.0 (SD ± 0.0). Otherwise, the complication rate was similar across groups. CONCLUSIONS: The SMG flap is a safe and effective option for volume restoration after parotidectomy. It provides durable volume that will not atrophy and is already exposed in the field of dissection for patients undergoing concurrent level I neck dissection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 130:E155-E162, 2020.