Minimally invasive vs conventional parotidectomy for benign tumors: a comparative study.

AIM: To evaluate the short- and long-term complication rates of minimally invasive parotidectomy compared to conventional parotidectomy for benign parotid tumors. MATERIALS AND

METHODS

A comparative study was conducted at a Tertiary Hospital in Marseille (2017–2024), including a prospective minimally invasive cohort and a retrospective conventional cohort, excluding pleomorphic adenomas.

OBJECTIVES

To compare short- and long-term complication rates of minimally invasive versus conventional parotidectomy for benign tumors, and assess patient satisfaction beyond one year.

RESULTS

A total of 115 patients were included. The minimally invasive group had a shorter hospital stay (median 2 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001), more outpatient management (8% vs. 0%, p = 0.033), and less postoperative drainage (68% vs. 100%, p < 0.001). Operative time was significantly reduced (median 50 vs. 142 min, p < 0.001). Conventional surgery was associated with higher rates of wound dehiscence (15.4% vs. 0%, p = 0.005), facial paralysis (18.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.001), lobule hypoesthesia at Day 1 (87.5% vs. 64.6%, p = 0.015), Day 21 (84.2% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.01), and one year (70.3% vs. 38.1%, p = 0.007), and more scar dysesthesia (31.6% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.006). Patients in the minimally invasive group were more satisfied with scar appearance, extent, and visibility (p < 0.001), had less sublobular depression (p < 0.001), and better tolerated the postoperative course (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive parotidectomy offers faster recovery, fewer complications, and suggests a superior long-term aesthetic and functional results for selected benign parotid tumors.