Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28516977›Full record

ReviewActa otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale2017

Complications of traditional and modern therapeutic salivary approaches.

O Nahlieli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Endoscopic litectomy: optimizing the management of sialolithiasis.Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 3D video-assisted trans-oral removal of deep hilo-parenchymal sub-mandibular stones.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

O NahlieliOral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department Barzilai Medical Center, Ashkelon, Israel. Affiliated to the Faculty of Medicine, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The morbidity following traditional surgery of the salivary glands is well documented and includes postsurgical complications such as the Frey's syndrome, complete or partial facial nerve damage, facial scarring, greater auricular nerve numbness, sialocoeles and salivary fistula. The avulsion of the salivary duct, secondary strictures, gland swelling, salivary fistulas and perforations (false rout), traumatic ranulas, and the lingual nerve paraesthesia are the main endoscopy-related complications. In general, the rate of postsurgical complications after modern advanced minimally invasive surgical interventions is significantly lower compared with traditional surgery of the salivary glands. However, such comparisons cannot be performed because up-to-date traditional and minimally invasive surgical techniques are applied to different salivary disorders. Combinations of various minimally invasive techniques are also possible. There is no clear borderline between "traditional" and "modern" surgery of the salivary glands. It is appropriate to write about gradual replacement of old techniques with newer ones, and this process has no traffic lights.

Indexed as

EndoscopyHumansLithotripsyPostoperative ComplicationsSalivary Gland DiseasesComplicationsMinimally invasive surgerySalivary glands

Identifiers

PMID28516977
PMCPMC5463522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.