What is the best method for prevention of postparotidectomy Frey syndrome? Network meta‐analysis

  • Mubarak Ahmed Mashrah
    Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University Guangzhou Guangdong China
  • Taghrid Aldhohrah
    Guanghua Stomatology Hospital Sun Yat‐Sen University Guangzhou Guangdong China
  • Ahmed Abdelrehem
    Department of Craniomaxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry Alexandria University Alexandria Egypt
  • Mohamed Koraitim
    Department of Craniomaxillofacial and Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry Alexandria University Alexandria Egypt
  • Liping Wang
    Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University Guangzhou Guangdong China

抄録

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Prevention of Frey syndrome (FS) after parotidectomy using an interposition barrier has long been gaining a wide popularity; however, there is no clear evidence regarding which preventive technique is more effective. The aim of this network meta‐analysis (NMA) is to answer the question: What is the best method for prevention of FS after parotidectomy?</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, SCOPUS, and Cochrane library was conducted to identify the eligible studies. The outcome was the incidence of subjective Frey syndrome (SFS) and objective Frey syndrome (OFS). The Bayesian NMA accompanied with a random effects model and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated using GeMTC R package.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Thirty‐four studies (n = 2987 patients) with five interventions, namely Alloderm (ADM), temporoparietal fascia (TPF), sternocleidomastoid muscle (SCM), superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS), and free fat graft (FFG), were compared together and with no interposition barrier (NB). The results of NMA showed a statistically significant reduction in both SFS and OFS when ADM, TPF, SMAS, FFG, and SCM were compared with NB. No statistical differences were observed when comparing ADM, SCM, SMAS, FFG, and TPF. TPF ranked the best of all treatments (59.4%) and was associated with the least incidence of SFS; whereas ADM ranked the best of all treatments (61.1%) and was associated with the least incidence of OFS.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>All interventions (TPF flap, ADM, FFG, SMAS, and SCM) were associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of FS when compared with NB. TPF and ADM showed the best outcome with the least incidence of SFS and OFS, respectively.</jats:p></jats:sec>

収録刊行物

  • Head & Neck

    Head & Neck 43 (4), 1345-1358, 2021-01-13

    Wiley

被引用文献 (1)*注記

もっと見る

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ