Significance of preserving the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve in parotidectomy
| Autor: | Munenaga Nakamizo, Shunkichi Baba, Shunta Inai, Toshiaki Yagi, Kazuhiko Yokoshima, Chika Ozu, Akira Fukumoto |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2004 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male medicine.medical_specialty Conventional surgery Adenoma Pleomorphic Pleomorphic adenoma Postoperative Complications medicine Humans Parotid Gland In patient Great auricular nerve Ear External Vas score Aged biology business.industry Carcinoma Acinar Cell Pinna General Medicine Parotidectomy Middle Aged biology.organism_classification medicine.disease Adenolymphoma Surgery Otorhinolaryngologic Surgical Procedures Parotid Neoplasms Treatment Outcome Anesthesia Sensation Disorders Quality of Life Carcinoma Mucoepidermoid Female Complication business |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Nippon Medical School = Nippon Ika Daigaku zasshi. 71(5) |
| ISSN: | 1345-4676 |
| Popis: | Objective: Sensory disturbance due to excision of the great auricular nerve in patients who have undergone parotidectomy sometimes causes discomfort to the patients. In order to reduce the postoperative discomfort of the pinna we tried to preserve the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve. Methods: Forty patients with parotid tumor were included in this study. Twenty‑one of these patients had pleomorphic adenoma 16 had adenolymphoma and 3 had a lo wg rade malignant tumor. Sensations of the pinna and the quality of life（QOL）after parotidectomy were evaluated using a 0－100 Visual Analogue Scale（VAS）assessed at 2 weeks 1 month 2 months 3 months and 6 months after parotidectomy. Results: The posterior branch of the great auricular nerve was preserved in 26 out of 40 patients（65％） . No difference was observed in the incidence of complications except sensory disturbance of the pinna with this surgical procedure as compared to the surgical technique where the great auricular nerve was excised. The VAS score for the sensatio nw as significantly higher in the group of patients whose great auricular nerve was preserved at 2 months（35.0±20.8 vs. 18.5±9.2） 3 months（64.4±18.3 vs. 26.4±13.8）and 6 months（66.9±16.2 vs. 26.6±11.4）after parotidectomy. The VAS score for the QOL was also significantly higher in the group of patients whose great auricular nerve was preserved at 2 months（50.3±21.8 vs. 35.1±14.5） 3 months（69.5±27.5 vs. 45.9±22.6）as well as 6 months（71.9±24.1 vs. 45.7±19.1） after parotidectomy. Conclusion: Preservation of the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve during parotidectomy is valuable in order to reduce the postoperative sensory disturbance of the pinna that follows conventional surgery. It further helps to improve the QOL of these patients after parotidectomy. （J Nippon Med Sch 2004; 71: 323―327） |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|