Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33471168›Full record

ArticleEuropean 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 Surgery2021

Fat transfer after parotidectomy: fat resorption rates, aesthetic and functional outcomes of en-bloc fat graft versus lipofilling technique.

Merve Tunca, Nilda Sütay Süslü, Ayça A Karaosmanoğlu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Lipofilling after total parotidectomy: a useful option to prevent functional and aesthetic sequelae.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2022
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Merve TuncaDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Sıhhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7675-0743
Nilda Sütay SüslüDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Sıhhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. nildasuslu@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9901-3044
Ayça A KaraosmanoğluDepartment of Radiology, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6991-9961
Hacettepe University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeReconstruction 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsAmong 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 cm

conclusionBoth en-bloc fat graft and lipofilling techniques have been found to be safe and to have similar fat resorption rates for reconstruction after parotidectomy.

Indexed as

Parotid NeoplasmsPlastic Surgery ProceduresSweating, GustatoryEstheticsHumansRetrospective StudiesAestheticEn-bloc fat graftFrey syndromeLipofillingParotidectomyReconstruction

Identifiers

PMID33471168
OpenAlexW3122833234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.