Postauricular incision versus conventional transcervical incision in submandibular gland excision: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Surgical removal of the submandibular gland is indicated for different conditions affecting the gland, such as neoplasm, sialadenitis, and sialolithiasis, and different types of surgical approaches have been reported. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the differences between the postauricular approach and conventional transcervical approach in submandibular gland excision. A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify studies comparing outcomes of submandibular gland surgery via the postauricular approach and conventional transcervical approach. The data of interest were analyzed with Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3; Biostat, Englewood, NJ). Dichotomous data and continuous data were analyzed by calculating the risk difference (RD) and the mean difference (MD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI), respectively. The results show that the postauricular incision is a feasible approach to access the submandibular gland, and compared with the conventional transcervical approach, it requires a longer operative duration but has a similar complication rate and yields better cosmetic outcomes.(c) 2022 Asian Surgical Association and Taiwan Robotic Surgery Association. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Automated summary

This meta-analysis evaluates the differences between the postauricular and conventional transcervical approaches for submandibular gland excision. The results show that the postauricular approach is feasible, although it has a longer operative duration. However, it has a similar complication rate and yields better cosmetic outcomes compared to the conventional transcervical approach.