| Literature DB >> 35360516 |
Maciej Zieliński1, Paweł Sowa1, Monika Adamczyk-Sowa2, Michał Szlęzak3, Maciej Misiołek1.
Abstract
The most significant complication of parotid gland tumor surgery is facial weakness. This study compares the occurrence of transient facial palsy in patients with parotid gland tumors who underwent surgery without monitoring to those who underwent surgery with monitoring. The study's aim was to investigate facial nerve function in patients undergoing parotidectomy as well as the effect of intraoperative facial nerve monitoring and the effect of certain risk factors on the surgery and onset of postoperative facial palsy. This prospective study included 100 patients who underwent parotidectomy. The study cohort was divided into two groups. Group I included 50 patients who underwent surgery without neuromonitoring and group II included 50 patients who underwent surgery with neuromonitoring. The neurological assessment was conducted using the House-Brackmann scale. Preoperatively and one month postoperatively, electroneuronography (ENoG) and blink reflex tests were done. The analyses showed a significant reduction of the compound muscle action potential (CMAP) amplitude of the orbicularis oculi and orbicularis oris muscles and prolonged R1 and R2 blink reflex latencies 1 month after surgery. On neurological and electrophysiological studies, the rate of postoperative transient facial nerve dysfunction was significantly different between the groups. Significantly more patients, operated with use of facial nerve monitoring, presented postoperatively normal nerve function (i.e., House-Brackmann grade I) compared to those who underwent surgery without monitoring (78% and 26%, respectively; p < 0.001). Monitoring had a statistically significant impact on the prevalence of facial nerve conduction disorders in patients who underwent surgery, according to the blink reflex and ENoG studies. The duration of the surgical procedure was not affected by monitoring in any way. The clinical evaluation of facial nerve function (House-Brackmann scale) and some ENoG results 1 month after surgery were found to have a significant correlation. To summarize, using monitoring considerably reduced the negative impact of local factors and the prevalence of transient facial nerve palsy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360516 PMCID: PMC8964167 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3318175
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Data of demographics, tumor features, and surgery length.
| Parameters | All patients | Group I | Group II |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||||
| Women | 66 | 34 | 32 | 0.673 |
| Men | 34 | 16 | 18 | |
| Age (years; M) (SD) | 54.96 (14.87) | 55.80 (15.16) | 54.26 (14.58) | 0.606 |
|
| ||||
| Histological findings | ||||
| Pleomorphic adenoma | 51 | 23 | 28 | 0.558 |
| Warthin tumor | 37 | 21 | 16 | |
| Other | 12 | 6 | 6 | |
|
| ||||
| Tumor size (maximal tumor diameter) | ||||
| <2 cm | 24 | 10 | 14 | 0.206 |
| 2–4 cm | 55 | 26 | 29 | |
| >4 cm | 21 | 14 | 7 | |
|
| ||||
| Location | ||||
| Superficial lobe | 71 | 40 | 31 | 0.024 |
| Deep lobe | 21 | 5 | 16 | |
| Superficial and deep lobes | 8 | 5 | 3 | |
|
| ||||
| Time of surgery [min] (SD) | 100.64 (38.05) | 100.88 (42.88) | 100.4 (32.95) | 0.950 |
Assessment of the facial nerve function in patients 1 month postoperatively.
| Assessment based on the House–Brackman scale |
| % | Group I ( | Group II ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Total | |||
| I | 52 | 52 | 13 (26%)a | 39 (78%)b |
| II | 25 | 25 | 17 (34%)a | 8 (16%)b |
| III | 13 | 13 | 10 (20%)a | 3 (6%)b |
| IV | 8 | 8 | 8 (16%)a | 0b |
| V | 2 | 2 | 2 (4%)a | 0a |
| VI | 0 | 0 | 0a | 0a |
The values in the columns with different letter indices differ at the level of p < 0.05 (Bonferroni correction). Group I—patients who underwent surgery without facial nerve monitoring. Group II—patients who underwent surgery with facial nerve monitoring. n—group size.
Summary of the results of amplitudes from the orbicularis oculi muscle and the orbicularis oris muscle.
| Examination |
| SE | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LL | UL | ||||
| Orbicularis oculi muscle [mV] | |||||
| Group I | 1 | 0.86 | 0.06 | 0.74 | 0.98 |
| 2 | 0.48 | 0.05 | 0.38 | 0.58 | |
| Group II | 1 | 0.35 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.47 |
| 2 | 0.28 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 0.37 | |
|
| |||||
| Orbicularis oris muscle [mV] | |||||
| Group I | 1 | 1.19 | 0.13 | 0.93 | 1.45 |
| 2 | 0.82 | 0.10 | 0.62 | 1.03 | |
| Group II | 1 | 1.19 | 0.13 | 0.93 | 1.45 |
| 2 | 0.88 | 0.10 | 0.68 | 1.08 | |
Group I—patients undergoing surgery in whom facial nerve monitoring was not applied. Group II—patients undergoing surgery in whom facial nerve monitoring was applied. M: mean; SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; LL and UL: lower and upper limits of the confidence interval.
Summary of the results of R1 and R2 latencies of the blink reflex for the study groups.
| Study |
| SE | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LL | UL | ||||
| R1 latency [ms] | |||||
| Group I | 1 | 8.33 | 0.44 | 7.45 | 9.22 |
| 2 | 11.43 | 0.43 | 10.58 | 12.28 | |
| Group II | 1 | 8.87 | 0.44 | 7.99 | 9.75 |
| 2 | 8.64 | 0.43 | 7.79 | 9.49 | |
|
| |||||
| R2 latency [ms] | |||||
| Group I | 1 | 36.46 | 1.58 | 33.33 | 39.59 |
| 2 | 41.98 | 1.78 | 38.45 | 45.50 | |
| Group II | 1 | 32.29 | 1.58 | 29.17 | 35.42 |
| 2 | 32.97 | 1.78 | 29.44 | 36.50 | |
Group I—patients undergoing surgery with facial nerve monitoring. Group II—patients undergoing surgery without facial nerve monitoring. M: mean; SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; LL and UL: lower and upper limits of the confidence interval.
Predictors of the occurrence of facial nerve paresis following salivary gland tumor surgery. Logistic regression coefficients.
| Predictors |
| SE |
|
| OR | 95% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Facial nerve monitoring | −2.58 | 0.57 | 20.43 | <0.001 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.23 |
| Sex | −0.66 | 0.54 | 1.52 | 0.217 | 0.52 | 0.18 | 1.48 |
| Tumor size | 1.21 | 0.64 | 3.54 | 0.060 | 3.34 | 0.95 | 11.73 |
| Tumor type | 0.49 | 0.80 | 0.38 | 0.540 | 1.64 | 0.34 | 7.89 |
| Tumor location | 1.42 | 0.492 | |||||
| Tumor location (1) | −0.54 | 1.08 | 0.25 | 0.616 | 0.58 | 0.07 | 4.86 |
| Tumor location (2) | 0.27 | 1.19 | 0.05 | 0.823 | 1.30 | 0.13 | 13.40 |
| Bleeding | −0.09 | 0.82 | 0.01 | 0.910 | 0.91 | 0.18 | 4.53 |
| Tumor wrapping | −0.42 | 0.52 | 0.63 | 0.426 | 0.66 | 0.24 | 1.84 |
| Constant | 2.06 | 1.47 | 1.96 | 0.162 | 7.85 | ||
B: regression coefficient; SE: standard error; W: Wald test value; p: test probability; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; LL: lower limit; UL: upper limit; tumor location (1): superficial lobe; tumor location (2): deep lobe.