4.4 Article

Scarless Excision of Second Branchial Cleft Cyst via Retroauricular Hairline Incision

Journal

AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03770-9

Keywords

Second branchial cleft cyst; Retroauricular hairline; Neck; Function; Recurrence

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The retroauricular hairline incision (RAHI) approach for treating second branchial cleft cysts (2nd BCC) results in excellent cosmetic, functional, and disease control outcomes.
BackgroundSecond branchial cleft cyst (2nd BCC) is treated by complete excision. Conventional transcervical skin incision on the lesion may leave a prominent scar in the cosmetically sensitive area. The retroauricular hairline incision (RAHI) approach may maintain neurological, mobility, and cosmetic functions of the neck and face after excision. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and disease control of scarless surgery via RAHI in 57 consecutive patients with 2nd BCC.MethodsThe patients received the prospective evaluation of postoperative neurological, subjective pain, swallowing, neck motion, and cosmetic functions. Postoperative complications, subjective satisfaction, and recurrence were also assessed in each patient.ResultsExcision was performed in all cases without injury to the facial nerve or other neurological complications and conversion to other incisions or approaches with a median operation time of 44 min. Complications were minimal, without dysphagia, neurological deficits, or limited neck motion. Postoperative incision scars in the postauricular and hairline region were commonly invisible. Subjective satisfaction with the scar and facial deformity was high after surgery. No patients had a recurrence for a median follow-up of 66 months.ConclusionThe RAHI approach for 2nd BCC has excellent cosmetic, functional, and disease control outcomes. This can be safely applied to the treatment of 2nd BCC.Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available