European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2021
Fat transfer after parotidectomy: fat resorption rates, aesthetic and functional outcomes of en-bloc fat graft versus lipofilling technique.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tunca Merve, Süslü Nilda Sütay, Karaosmanoğlu Ayça A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Reconstruction of parotidectomy involves the correction of facial contour abnormalities and prevention from Frey Syndrome. Reconstruction of parotidectomy field with autologous fat has not been popular among head and neck surgeons due to unclear predictability of fat resorption rates. The aim of this paper is to compare the fat resorption rates between different fat transfer techniques using radiologic measurements and reviewing the aesthetic and functional outcomes.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients, who underwent parotidectomy in Hacettepe University Hospital between 2015 and 2018. The aesthetic and functional outcomes of en-bloc fat graft and lipofilling techniques were compared among themselves, as well as with patients who had no reconstruction, using objective parameters. Fat resorption rates were compared using calculation of fat volumes obtained by MRI scans, 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS: Among 77 patients, 26 underwent reconstruction with en-bloc fat graft (P-EBFG); 21 patients reconstruction with lipofilling technique (P-LFT), whereas 30 patients had no reconstruction of parotidectomy field (P-NR). In three groups, there was no statistically significant difference in mean resected parotid tissue volumes (mean 18 ± 10.8 cm3, p = 0.754). We found a significant difference in decreased presence of Frey Syndrome and increased satisfation rates of cosmetic appearance in P-EBFG and P-LFT, in comparison to P-NR (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in fat resorption rates between P-EBFG (50.75 + 21.20%) and P-LFT (48.59 + 17.93%) (p = 0.771).
CONCLUSION: Both en-bloc fat graft and lipofilling techniques have been found to be safe and to have similar fat resorption rates for reconstruction after parotidectomy.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of patients, who underwent parotidectomy in Hacettepe University Hospital between 2015 and 2018. The aesthetic and functional outcomes of en-bloc fat graft and lipofilling techniques were compared among themselves, as well as with patients who had no reconstruction, using objective parameters. Fat resorption rates were compared using calculation of fat volumes obtained by MRI scans, 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS: Among 77 patients, 26 underwent reconstruction with en-bloc fat graft (P-EBFG); 21 patients reconstruction with lipofilling technique (P-LFT), whereas 30 patients had no reconstruction of parotidectomy field (P-NR). In three groups, there was no statistically significant difference in mean resected parotid tissue volumes (mean 18 ± 10.8 cm3, p = 0.754). We found a significant difference in decreased presence of Frey Syndrome and increased satisfation rates of cosmetic appearance in P-EBFG and P-LFT, in comparison to P-NR (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in fat resorption rates between P-EBFG (50.75 + 21.20%) and P-LFT (48.59 + 17.93%) (p = 0.771).
CONCLUSION: Both en-bloc fat graft and lipofilling techniques have been found to be safe and to have similar fat resorption rates for reconstruction after parotidectomy.