 |
|
Randomized Prospective Study of the Validity of the Great Auricular Nerve Preservation in Parotidectomy
Mauro Becker Martins Vieira, MD;
Amélio Ferreira Maia, MD;
Jaime Carlos Ribeiro, MD
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;128:1191-1195.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To evaluate the feasibility and validity of great auricular nerve preservation
during parotidectomy.
Methods Thirty patients with parotid tumors were randomized to 2 groups. Sixteen
patients (group A) underwent classic parotidectomy with sacrifice of the great
auricular nerve. The surgeon tried to spare the nerve in the 14 patients (group
B). Tactile sensitivity, pain sensitivity, and tactile discrimination were
evaluated preoperatively and at 7 days, 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months after
surgery. The regions examined were the superior helix, lobule, and infra-auricular
and posterior auricular regions.
Results After surgery, both groups showed lower levels of sensitivity, mainly
in the lobule and in the infra-auricular region. These alterations were less
pronounced in group B. Both groups showed improvement over time. In group
B the tactile sensitivity reached preoperative levels by 6 months after surgery.
The recuperation in group A was partial and stabilized at 6 months after surgery.
Conclusion Great auricular nerve preservation is technically feasible during parotidectomy,
with a decrease of the sensitivity alterations in the early postoperative
period and avoidance of the permanent sequelae that occur when the nerve is
sacrificed.
INTRODUCTION
THE GREAT auricular nerve (GAN) is usually cut at the level of the parotid
inferior pole during a parotidectomy and many authors find this procedure
inevitable.1-4 Surgeons
who are involved in this type of surgery are familiar with the sensitive alterations
in the operated area, a frequent complaint by the patient. Traditionally,
little importance is given to this sequela and it is considered a small price
to be paid for the removal of the main disease.5 But
there are reports in the literature of complications due to hyposensitivity
in the lobule region after parotidectomy.6-7
In recent years, we have seen an increasing concern not just in cure
rates, but also in the functional results of all types of surgical treatment,
including parotid surgery. The idea of GAN preservation is not new,8-10 but it has not been
widely accepted. There are arguments over its viability and validity. To clarify
these questions, we performed a prospective randomized study.
The GAN is a sensitive nerve that has its origin in the second and third
spinal nerves.8 It becomes superficial in the
posterior border of the sternocleidomastoid muscle. From there, it ascends
to the parotid region where it splits. The nerve division pattern is important
to the surgeon who intends to preserve it, and this subject was the secondary
aim of this study.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
PATIENTS
From October 1995 to October 1997, patients about to undergo a parotidectomy
without preoperative diagnosis of malignant tumor were divided in 2 groups.
Group A (16 patients), underwent a classic parotidectomy and the GAN was sacrificed.
In group B (14 patients) an attempt was made to preserve the nerve during
the surgery.
The age and sex of the patients, size and location of the tumor, and
histopathologic results were used to evaluate the comparability between the
groups.
The average age for all patients was 47 years, ranging from 16 to 78
years. Group A had a mean age of 50 years (range, 27-73 years); group B had
a mean age of 43 years (range, 16-78 years). There were 20 female patients,
13 in group A and 7 in group B.
Concerning the size of the lesions in all patients, 6 were less than
2 cm in diameter (group A, 5; group B, 1), 13 were between 2 and 4 cm (group
A, 6; group B, 7), and 11 were more than 4 cm (group A, 5; group B, 6).
Tumors in the inferior parotid pole were present in 19 cases, 9 in group
A and 10 in group B. In 5 patients, all in group B, there were extensions
to the deep lobe of the parotid, and a total parotidectomy was necessary.
In the other cases, a superficial parotidectomy was done. In all cases, the
facial nerve and its branches were preserved.
The duration of the surgical procedure was recorded, as were the GAN
branches that were preserved and their anatomic distribution.
The postoperative histopathologic examination revealed 27 benign lesions
(14 pleomorphic adenomas, 2 monomorphic adenomas, 5 Warthin tumors, 2 lipomas,
1 hemangioma, 1 cystic lesion, 1 chronic inflammatory process, and 1 hyperplasic
lymph nodule).
In 3 patients, the final diagnosis revealed a malignancy. The first
case, a lower grade acinic cell carcinoma, had preoperative cytological examination
findings that suggested a pleomorphic adenoma. The second case, a fibrosarcoma,
had 2 inconclusive preoperative fine-needle aspiration biopsies. The third
case, an intraparotid metastasis of a breast cancer, had a cytological study
that suggested an adenoma. The first 2 patients underwent postoperative radiotherapy
and the third patient was referred to clinical oncology.
Nine cases of pleomorphic adenoma, 1 case of monomorphic adenoma, 3
cases of Warthin tumors, and the hemangioma case were in group B. The rest
of the tumors, including the 3 cases of cancer, were in group A.
GAN PRESERVATION TECHNIQUE
The skin incision starts at the infra-auricular area and is limited
to the superficial subcutaneous layer. A blunt dissection is done at the sternocleidomastoid
muscle posterior border until the GAN trunk is identified. The nerve is dissected
upward and usually 3 branches can be visualized: an anterior branch that goes
to the parotid parenchyma and preauricular skin, a posterior superficial branch
that goes to the auricle, and a posterior deep branch that goes along the
anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid muscle. The anterior branch is
usually sacrificed. The last 2 branches can be technically preserved during
the surgery. Occasionally an inferior anterior branch is identified and it
can be preserved. The anatomy of the GAN is demonstrated in Figure 1A. With the main trunk and the posterior branches protected,
we proceed with the parotidectomy. We had no major problem in preserving the
posterior branches of the auricular nerve, even in big tumors, since these
branches do not go to the tumor. They run vertically and can be preserved
by careful dissection when the fascia connecting the parotid gland to the
sternocleidomastoid muscle is cut (Figure
1B).
|
|
|
|
Figure 1. Great auricular nerve anatomy
(A) and identification of great auricular nerve during parotidectomy (B).
|
|
|
Tactile sensitivity in the superior helix, lobule, and infra-auricular
and posterior auricular regions was evaluated during preoperative examination
and 7 days, 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months after the surgery. The superior
helix was defined as the superior one third of the auricle. The lobule was
defined as the inferior part of the auricle without cartilage. The posterior
auricular area was defined as an area between the posterior auricle insertion
and the hairline. The infra-auricular area is located between the auricle
and the angle of the mandible. Tactile sensitivity was evaluated using cotton
wool, which was gently applied at least 3 times in each of the 4 areas. The
patient, with eyes closed, would give a signal if he or she felt the cotton.
Pain sensitivity was evaluated by touching the 4 areas, sometimes using a
pointed instrument, sometimes with a blunt instrument, and recording the patient
capacity to identify the right stimulus with the eyes closed. Tactile discrimination
was evaluated using a 2-point discriminator. We started with a 3-cm distance
and decreased 1 cm each time, until the patient was not able to identify the
difference between a 2- and a 1-point touch. The results for tactile and pain
sensitivity range from 0 to 3 depending on the percentage of right stimulus
identification, with 0 representing the worst result and 3 the best result.
The tactile discrimination results represent the shorter distance between
the 2-point sensation that the patient can discriminate. When the patient
was not able to discriminate a 3-cm distance, a grade of 4 was given. So,
4 represents the worst result and 1 the best result.
The average results for each group were obtained and a comparative analysis
was done.
RESULTS
The sacrifice of the GAN anterior branch was necessary in all group
B patients. In 1 case the posterior superficial branch was also sacrificed,
preserving the posterior deep branch. In all other cases, it was possible
to preserve both the superficial and the deep posterior branches of the GAN.
The anterior inferior branch was preserved in the 2 cases where it was identified.
The mean duration of surgery in group A was 118 minutes, ranging from
70 to 180 minutes. In group B the mean duration was 121 minutes, ranging from
80 to 180 minutes.
There were 11 cases of postoperative temporary facial nerve paresis,
5 in group A and 6 in group B. All patients had complete recovery of this
motor deficit.
Two patients in group B presented infra-auricular area hyperesthesis
6 months after surgery. During the first year of follow-up, no patient complained
of Frey syndrome or had local recurrence.
The results of the preoperative and postoperative sensitivity evaluations
are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4.
|
|
|
|
Figure 2. Pain sensitivity after auricular
sacrifice (A) and after auricular nerve preservation (B). 0 Represents the
worst result and 3 the best result (see the "Patients and Methods" section
for more detailed explanation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 3. Tactile sensitivity after auricular
sacrifice (A) and after auricular nerve preservation (B). 0 Represents the
worst result and 3 the best result (see the "Patients and Methods" section
for more detailed explanation).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Figure 4. Tactile discrimination after auricular
sacrifice (A) and after auricular nerve preservation (B). 4 Represents the
worst result and 1 the best result (see the "Patients and Methods" section
for more detailed explanation).
|
|
|
COMMENT
The unnecessary sacrifice of anatomic structures is not justified, mainly
if it implies significant dysfunction. Besides the discomfort provoked, the
postparotidectomy hyposensitivity of the lobule has been associated with traumatic
lesions secondary to deficiency in defense mechanisms mediated by pain.6-7 Another frequent complaint is the difficulty
in wearing earrings.
Theoretically, the preservation of the GAN would avoid such complications.
But to actually confirm the validity of the procedure, we have to answer some
questions: First, whether preservation of the GAN is technically feasible
during parotidectomy and, second, whether the preservation is associated with
any undesirable factor, such as prolonged surgical time, a higher tumor recurrence
rate, or any other complication. Finally, we need to know if the preservation
of the GAN is really related to better functional results. This work was undertaken
to answer these questions.
Our 2 groups in the present study were similar with regard to age, size
of the lesions, and extension of the inferior parotid pole. Group A had more
female patients and group B had all the cases of deep parotid lobe extension.
In all but 3 cases the final histopathologic study confirmed the preoperative
diagnosis of a benign lesion. The cancer cases were in the group in which
the GAN was sacrificed. For this reason it is not possible to evaluate the
preservation of the GAN in malignant tumors.
Most authors describe 2 branches of the GAN, an anterior one and a posterior
one.8 As we observed, at least 3 branches were
identified: (1) an anterior branch that directs to the gland, whose preservation
in all our cases was not possible. (2) One branch is superficially posterior
and goes to the auricular lobule. It runs a high risk of being cut if careful
dissection is not done. (3) The last branch is deeply posterior, located along
the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid muscle, and goes to the posterior
auricular area. In a few patients it is possible to identify a fourth branch
that is inferior and anterior and is located at a lower level than the limit
of the inferior parotid. Its preservation is possible during parotidectomy
(Figure 1). The present study showed
that the preservation of the 2 posterior branches is technically feasible
and, in group B, it was possible in all but 1 patient whose posterior superficial
branch was sacrificed. Even large tumor located in the inferior part of the
parotid does not avoid the preservation of the posterior branches of the auricular
nerve.
There was no major difference in the operative time between group A
and group B. The main factor affecting the surgery duration was facial nerve
dissection. The identification and preservation of the GAN took 5 to 10 minutes.
The occurrence of temporary facial nerve paresis was similar in both groups,
despite the fact that all 5 cases of total parotidectomy were in group B,
involving a procedure with a greater manipulation of the facial nerve.
Late occurrence of infra-auricular hyperesthesis was found in 2 group
B patients, but without causing major discomfort. The absence of complications
such as Frey syndrome and recurrence probably is due to the 1-year limited
follow-up. We did not intend to evaluate the incidence of Frey syndrome in
this study. We have not routinely done starch iodine testing. But, it was
interesting to notice that, during the first year of follow-up, none of our
patients complained of Frey syndrome. After this period, some patients developed
this syndrome.
Seven days after the surgery, both the tactile and pain sensitivity
showed worse results compared with the preoperative evaluation. This occurred
in all regions, but mainly in the lobule and infra-auricular region. The fact
that we tested areas such as the superior auricular area and the posterior
auricular area may give an idea of too good results. These areas had not much
sensitivity change by the nerve sacrifice. If we limit our analysis to the
lobule and the inferior auricular area, a greater postoperative change in
the sensitivity will be noticed.
The decline in sensitivity was greater in group A. After 30 days, the
results improved in both groups, but were still better in group B. At the
6-month postoperative evaluation, the results in group B reached the preoperative
level. In group A, there was still a sensitivity deficit that tended to stabilize
and remain the same at the 12-month postoperative evaluation.
There was some difficulty in evaluating the tactile discrimination.
Many patients had a preoperative 2-point discrimination of 2 cm or higher
and a 4-cm evaluation was not possible because it would have gone beyond the
limits of the researched regions. Despite these problems, we noticed a difference
in favor of group B. At the 7-day postoperative evaluation, both groups showed
worse discrimination compared with preoperative results, mainly in the lobule
and infra-auricular region. The results for group B returned to the preoperative
level 30 days after the surgery. A tactile discrimination deficit persisted
at group A, even at 1 year after the surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
Preservation of the GAN posterior branches is technically feasible during
parotidectomy. This procedure does not result in significant increase in operative
time and is not associated with major complications. Preservation of the GAN
decreases the early postoperative sensitivity deficit and avoids the permanent
sequelae that occurs when the nerve is sacrificed. Therefore, the routine
sacrifice of the GAN during parotidectomy should be avoided, mainly in cases
of benign disease.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication March 11, 2002.
Corresponding author and reprints: Mauro Becker Martins Vieira, MD,
Avenida do Contorno, 9215 / Sala 802, CEP 30.110-130, Belo Horizonte MG, Brazil
(e-mail: maurobecker{at}uol.com.br).
From the Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery,
Hospital Felício Rocho, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
REFERENCES
| |
1. Johns ME, Kaplan MJ. Surgical therapy of tumors of the salivary glands. In: Thawley SE, Panje WR, eds. Comprehensive Management
of Head and Neck Tumors. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1987:1104-1138.
2. Miehlke A. Surgery of the salivary glands and the extratemporal portion of the
facial nerve. In: Naumann HH, ed. Head and Neck Surgery.
Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1980:421-464.
3. Rush BF. Tumors of the head and neck. In: Schwartz SI. Principles of Surgery.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co; 1984:557-601.
4. Saunders RJ, Hirata RM, Jaques DA. Salivary glands. Surg Clin North Am. 1986;66:61-85.
5. Rankow RM, Polayes IM. Complications of surgery of the salivary glands. In: Conley JJ, ed. Complications of Head and Neck
Surgery. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1979:196-214.
6. Brown AMS, Wake JC. Accidental full thickness burn of the ear lobe following division of
the great auricular nerve at parotidectomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;28:178-179.
PUBMED
7. Fardy MJ. Neurotic excoriation complicating superficial parotidectomy. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993;31:41-42.
PUBMED
8. Brown JS, Ord RA. Preserving the great auricular nerve in parotid surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989;27:459-466.
PUBMED
9. Converse JM, ed. Reconstructive Plastic Surgery. Vol 5. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1977:2534.
10. Strong EW. Book review. Head Neck Surg. 1986;9:134.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Great auricular nerve morbidity after nerve sacrifice during parotidectomy.
Ryan and Fee
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;132:642-649.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The otic ganglion in rats and its parotid connection: cholinergic pathways, reflex secretion and a secretory role for the facial nerve
Khosravani et al.
Exp Physiol 2006;91:239-247.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
