Meta-Analysis to Evaluate the Efficacy of Sternocleidomastoid Muscle Flap as a Reconstruction Modality in Prevention of Frey's Syndrome Following Parotidectomy

Correction of Facial Asymmetry due to Different Complex Mandibular Pathologies by Aesthetic Surgical Procedures: A Case Series and Assessment of Quality of Life Following Corrective Surgeries

Background

A numerous diseases may result in facial asymmetry, one of them is the presence of any condylar pathology. Patients with such condylar pathology resulting in facial asymmetry have a functional, aesthetic and psychological impact on them. The present study aims to identify the effect of corrective surgeries of such cosmetic deformities on the quality of life of the patients.

Case Reports

Patients diagnosed with condylar pathologies resulting in facial asymmetry subjected to the corrective surgeries. The quality of life assessment was done preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively, by assessing the oral health using the Japanese version of the Oral Health impact profile (OHIP). A total of 12 patients were operated and assessed with an age ranges of 18-42 years. Seven out of 12 patients were diagnosed with condylar hyperplasia, and five patients were having benign tumor of the mandibular condyle. The mean preoperative OHIP score was 68.25 ± 7.19, which significantly improved to 24.58 ± 4.88 postoperatively.

Conclusion

Corrective surgeries of facial deformity dramatically improves the quality of life of the patients.

Frey syndrome after conservative parotidectomy: Importance of closing the remnant parotid parenchyma

BACKGROUND

Frey syndrome (FS) is a typical late complication following parotidectomy. Parotid surgery without proper coverage or reconstruction of exposed parotid parenchyma may contribute to the development of FS. Therefore, this study compared the closure versus the non-closure of exposed parotid parenchyma in the occurrence of FS.

METHODS

This study included 195 patients with parotid lesions who underwent partial or superficial parotidectomy plus closure or non-closure of exposed parotid parenchyma, both with the application of fibrin glue. Two surgical methods of closure and non-closure were allocated to patients without randomization and blinding processes. The primary outcome was FS, and the second outcome was other complication rates.

RESULTS

The closure and non-closure of exposed parotid parenchyma were performed in 102 and 93 patients, respectively. Early postoperative complications occurred with temporary events: transient facial weakness, 32 (16.4%); hematoma, 13 (6.7%); and wound infection, 2 (1.0%), without statistical difference between the two groups (P > 0.1). However, sialocele occurred in the non-closure group (n = 19) more than in the closure group (n = 7) (P = 0.005). In the first postoperative year, decreased sensation and local pain were found in 16 patients (8.2%) and 9 patients (4.6%), respectively, with no statistical difference between the two groups (P > 0.1). FS was found more in the non-closure group (n = 19, 20.4%) than in the closure group (n = 4, 3.9%) (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The closure of exposed parotid parenchyma and covering fascia is preferred over the non-closure to prevent FS.

Is the Use of Intermaxillary Fixation Screws an Alternative to Erich Arch Bars for Maxillomandibular Fixation During Management of Maxillofacial Fractures? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Study Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective

Maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) is a step of paramount importance during the management of maxillofacial trauma. Erich arch bars are being used for this purpose for decades but with advances in maxillofacial trauma management, intermaxillary fixation screws came into existence and are being used routinely. The present study was designed to identify if the intermaxillary fixation screws are really an alternative to Erich arch bars for management of maxillofacial trauma.

Methodology

An exhaustive literature search was conducted in May 2020 on various electronic databases and studies comparing Erich arch bars and intermaxillary fixation screws were recruited for the analysis. Random-effects model with Mantel Haenszel statistics was used to analyze oral hygiene and duration of achieving MMF.

Results

A total of 96 studies were identified, out of which 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in oral hygiene status of the patients in both the groups. Intermaxillary fixations screws required statistically significantly less time in achieving MMF. Needle stick injury was prominently seen with the use of Erich arch bar whereas other complications like mucosal coverage, root injury, screw loosening and screw fracture makes the use of intermaxillary fixation screws questionable.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis suggests that there is not enough evidence to recommend the use of intermaxillary fixation screws as an alternative to Erich arch bars. Further research with large sample size, high quality evidence and better methodology is recommended in this direction.

What is a better modality of maxillomandibular fixation: bone-supported arch bars or Erich arch bars? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Any procedure that aims to manage maxillofacial fracture is incomplete without meticulous maxillomandibular fixation (MMF). For decades, Erich arch bars (EABs) have been used for this purpose, but with the advent of bone-supported arch bars (BSABs), more surgeons now prefer them to conventional EABs. The present study was designed to identify which of the two methods is best. An exhaustive literature search was conducted in June 2020 on various electronic databases to select studies that compared EABs and BSABs. Outcomes such as duration of placement, stability, oral hygiene, and complications such as damage to the roots of teeth and needle-stick injury, were analysed. A total of 716 studies were identified, of which seven were eligible for inclusion. The meta-analysis showed that the use of BSABs is significantly faster with no needle penetration and better oral hygiene. Both arch bars are equally stable, but root damage is an associated complication. The available literature to date shows that BSABs are a better option than EABs. However, further research is recommended, as these studies are associated with various confounding factors.

What is the best method for prevention of postparotidectomy Frey syndrome? Network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prevention of Frey syndrome (FS) after parotidectomy using an interposition barrier has long been gaining a wide popularity; however, there is no clear evidence regarding which preventive technique is more effective. The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to answer the question: What is the best method for prevention of FS after parotidectomy?

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Cochrane library was conducted to identify the eligible studies. The outcome was the incidence of subjective Frey syndrome (SFS) and objective Frey syndrome (OFS). The Bayesian NMA accompanied with a random effects model and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated using GeMTC R package.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies (n = 2987 patients) with five interventions, namely Alloderm (ADM), temporoparietal fascia (TPF), sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM), superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS), and free fat graft (FFG), were compared together and with no interposition barrier (NB). The results of NMA showed a statistically significant reduction in both SFS and OFS when ADM, TPF, SMAS, FFG, and SCM were compared with NB. No statistical differences were observed when comparing ADM, SCM, SMAS, FFG, and TPF. TPF ranked the best of all treatments (59.4%) and was associated with the least incidence of SFS; whereas ADM ranked the best of all treatments (61.1%) and was associated with the least incidence of OFS.

CONCLUSIONS

All interventions (TPF flap, ADM, FFG, SMAS, and SCM) were associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of FS when compared with NB. TPF and ADM showed the best outcome with the least incidence of SFS and OFS, respectively.

Reconstruction using sternocleidomastoid muscle flap versus posterior belly of digastric muscle flap compared with no reconstruction following superficial parotidectomy

INTRODUCTION

The most common complications following superficial parotidectomy are formation of contour deformity and development of Frey's syndrome. Multiple modalities are being used to prevent these complications. We hereby intend to compare the reconstruction modalities (sternocleidomastoid (SCM) muscle flap, posterior belly of digastric (PBD) muscle flap) with) No reconstruction (NR) following superficial parotidectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comparative study was designed which included 15 patients requiring parotidectomy. These patients were divided into three groups viz. SCM, PBD, and NR. The functional outcome (facial nerve involvement, Frey syndrome, ear lobule sensation, neck movements) and the esthetic results were evaluated subjectively and objectively. The outcomes were statistically evaluated using chi-square test and ANOVA test.

RESULTS

Facial nerve palsy occurred in 2 cases in each group, and all of them recovered completely within 6 months. The Minor starch iodine test was positive in 1 patient in the SCM group, in 2 patients in the PBD group, and in 4 patients in the NR group; only 1 patient of PBD group and 3 patients of NR group complained of gustatory sweating. Neck movements were unaffected in the PBD and NR groups; however, 1 patient complained of mild discomfort and pain during neck movements in the SCM group.

CONCLUSION

Primary closure showed the worst results regarding cosmetic deformity. Hence, it is recommended to mandatorily reconstruct the defect. However, the sternocleidomastoid muscle flap is a better cosmetic option compared with posterior belly of digastric muscle flap. In cases with larger defects, a combination of both the flaps can be used. SCM flap also lowers the incidence of Frey syndrome objectively and subjectively with no reported hazard of the spinal accessory nerve and mildly affected neck movements.