This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (25)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Dermatology  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Pavel Dulguerov, MD; Didier Quinodoz, MD; Grégoire Cosendai; Pierre Piletta, MD; Francis Marchal, MD; Willy Lehmann, MD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1999;125:833-839.

Objective  To evaluate the incidence of Frey syndrome (auriculotemporal nerve syndrome) after parotidectomy with and without placement of a subcutaneous implant and to examine the relationship between different implants and postoperative wound complications (hematoma, seroma, salivary fistula).

Design  A prospective nonrandomized controlled trial.

Setting  A primary care and referral university hospital center.

Patients  All patients scheduled for parotidectomy from April 1994 through August 1998 were eligible. Seventy patients were enrolled (2 refused). All 70 patients were evaluated for wound complications. Sixty patients with a follow-up of more than 1 year were evaluated for Frey syndrome.

Intervention  The choice of implant was left to the individual surgeon: 24 patients had no implant; 7, lyophilized dura implant; 7, polyglactin 910–polydioxanone (Ethisorb) implant; and 32, expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) implant.

Outcome Measures  The incidence of Frey syndrome was evaluated (1) subjectively by history (clinical Frey syndrome) and (2) objectively by using 2 newly developed tests. Both hemifaces were tested, with the normal side being used as a control.

Results  Clinical Frey syndrome was present in 12 patients: 11 without implants (11/24 [53%]) and 1 with an implant (1/46 [2%]) (P<.001). Objective tests were positive in 24 patients: 16 (76%) of 21 without implants and 8 (20%) of 39 with implants (P<.001). In the implanted patients, the objective tests were positive in 71% (5/7) of those with lyophilized dura, 14% (1/7) of those with Ethisorb, and 8% (2/29) of those with e-PTFE implants (P<.001). Wound complications included hematoma in 5 patients (7%), seroma in 4 patients (6%), and salivary fistula in 15 (21%). Salivary fistula occurred more frequently with Ethisorb (57%) and e-PTFE (25%) implants (P=.04).

Conclusions  In patients without an implant, the incidence of Frey syndrome is 50% for subjective and 80% for objective evaluation. In patients with an implant, these incidences are 3% and 10%, respectively. Some implants are associated with a higher incidence of salivary fistula.

From the Division of Head and Neck Surgery (Drs Dulguerov, Quinodoz, Marchal, and Lehmann), Cochlear Implants Center (Mr Cosendai), and Clinic of Dermatology and Venereology (Dr Piletta), Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Meta-analysis of Surgical Techniques for Preventing Parotidectomy Sequelae
Curry et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2009;11:327-331.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of AlloDerm Implant to Prevent Frey Syndrome After Parotidectomy
Sinha et al.
Arch Facial Plast Surg 2003;5:109-112.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Parotid Surgery and Frey Syndrome
Sood and Bradley
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:1168-1168.
FULL TEXT  

The Fallacy of Preventing Frey Syndrome During Parotidectomy
Kornblut et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;126:556-556.
FULL TEXT