Kato Masanari G, Erkul Evren, Nguyen Shaun A, Day Terry A, Hornig Joshua D, Lentsch Eric J, Gillespie M Boyd
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.
Stony Brook University School of Medicine, Stony Brook, New York.
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Nov 1;143(11):1092-1097. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2017.1618.
The clinical implications of extracapsular dissection over superficial parotidectomy are controversial and limited in data on cost-effectiveness.
To compare extracapsular dissection with superficial parotidectomy for benign parotid tumors with respect to surgical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective medical record review and cost-effectiveness analysis performed from August 2012 to November 2015 at a tertiary care institution. Adult patients (age ≥18 years) who underwent parotidectomy for benign parotid lesions were included.
Treatment by extracapsular dissection or superficial parotidectomy.
Differences in postoperative complication rates and health services outcomes, including procedure time, anesthesia time, length of stay, and charges for surgeon, anesthesia, operating room, and hospital.
A total of 46 parotidectomies consisting of 26 extracapsular dissections and 20 superficial parotidectomies met criteria. Of the 46 patients, 33 were women. Patient ages ranged from 18 to 83 years. Lesion features were similar between groups with most being pleomorphic adenoma. Procedure time (effect size, -1.31; 95% CI, -1.93 to -0.65), anesthesia time (effect size, -1.37; 95% CI, -1.99 to -0.70), and length of stay (effect size, -0.66; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.05) were significantly shorter for extracapsular dissection compared with superficial parotidectomy. Moreover, anesthesia (effect size, -1.55; 95% CI, -2.19 to -0.86), operating room (effect size, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.69 to -0.45), and total hospital charges (effect size, -1.13; 95% CI, -1.74 to -0.49) were significantly less for extracapsular dissection while remaining charges, including surgeon, showed no difference. Finally, facial nerve weakness, great auricular nerve dysesthesia, and other relevant postoperative complications were comparable between groups.
In the hands of an experienced surgeon, extracapsular dissection is a shorter, less costly, and equally safe alternative to traditional superficial parotidectomy when treating benign parotid lesions. Further follow-up is needed to ensure these perceived advantages are maintained over time.
腮腺浅叶切除术之外的包膜外剥离术的临床意义存在争议,且关于成本效益的数据有限。
比较包膜外剥离术与腮腺浅叶切除术治疗腮腺良性肿瘤的手术效果和成本效益。
设计、地点和参与者:这是一项于2012年8月至2015年11月在一家三级医疗机构进行的回顾性病历审查和成本效益分析。纳入了因腮腺良性病变接受腮腺切除术的成年患者(年龄≥18岁)。
采用包膜外剥离术或腮腺浅叶切除术治疗。
术后并发症发生率和卫生服务结局的差异,包括手术时间、麻醉时间、住院时间以及外科医生、麻醉、手术室和医院的费用。
共有46例腮腺切除术符合标准,其中26例为包膜外剥离术,20例为腮腺浅叶切除术。46例患者中,33例为女性。患者年龄在18至83岁之间。两组病变特征相似,大多数为多形性腺瘤。与腮腺浅叶切除术相比,包膜外剥离术的手术时间(效应量,-1.31;95%置信区间,-1.93至-0.65)、麻醉时间(效应量,-1.37;95%置信区间,-1.99至-0.70)和住院时间(效应量,-0.66;95%置信区间,-1.25至-0.05)明显更短。此外,包膜外剥离术的麻醉费用(效应量,-1.55;95%置信区间,-2.19至-0.86)、手术室费用(效应量,-1.09;95%置信区间,-1.69至-0.45)和医院总费用(效应量,-1.13;95%置信区间,-1.74至-0.49)明显更低,但包括外科医生费用在内的其他费用无差异。最后,两组之间面神经麻痹、耳大神经感觉异常及其他相关术后并发症相当。
在经验丰富的外科医生手中,治疗腮腺良性病变时,包膜外剥离术是一种比传统腮腺浅叶切除术更短、成本更低且同样安全的替代方法。需要进一步随访以确保随着时间推移这些明显的优势得以保持。