4.6 Article

Selective deep lobe parotidectomy via retroauricular hairline (Roh's) incision for deep lobe parotid pleomorphic adenoma

Journal

ORAL DISEASES
Volume 29, Issue 1, Pages 188-194

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/odi.14069

Keywords

complications; deep lobe parotidectomy; pleomorphic adenoma; recurrence; retroauricular hairline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the effectiveness of selective deep lobe parotidectomy via Roh's incision for pleomorphic adenoma. The results showed high surgical success rate, minimal complications, well-preserved salivary secretory function, and no recurrence.
Objective Deep lobe parotid tumour is commonly removed with the covering superficial lobe of parotid gland. Total or subtotal parotidectomy leads to an increase in surgical morbidity. This study evaluated recurrence and function after selective deep lobe parotidectomy via retroauricular hairline (Roh's) incision for pleomorphic adenoma. Materials and methods Twenty-eight patients with deep lobe parotid pleomorphic adenomas underwent selective deep lobe parotidectomy with preservation of the superficial lobe and the facial lobe via Roh's incision. Each patient was evaluated with any complications, cosmetic and salivary functions and local recurrence. Results Superficial lobe-preserving surgery via Roh's incision was successfully applied to all patients without injury to the facial nerve and the Stensen's duct for a median operation time of 65 min. Facial nerve paralysis was found only temporarily in 9 (32%) patients, and other complications were minimal. None of the patients had postoperative Frey's syndrome. Salivary secretory function in the operated side was well preserved. No recurrence was found in the patients for a median follow-up of 94 months. Conclusions Selective deep lobe parotidectomy via Roh's incision is a reliable option of treatment for deep lobe parotid pleomorphic adenoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available