SynthesisThe Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology2022
A Systematic Literature Review to Compare Clinical Outcomes of Different Surgical Techniques for Second Branchial Cyst Removal.
Synthesis in The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Case of concurrent second branchial cleft cyst and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2026Article
- Scarless Excision of Second Branchial Cleft Cyst via Retroauricular Hairline Incision.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Logistic regression analysis of risk factors influencing postoperative keloid scar recurrence.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- The Role of Ipsilateral Tonsillectomy in the Extirpation of Branchial Cleft Anomalies- A Retrospective Monocentric Analysis Over 13 Years.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDuring the last 2 decades, new treatment methods have been developed for the surgical removal of second branchial cysts which result in less visible scars. The aim of this systematic review is to assess which surgical technique for second branchial arch cyst removal results in the lowest complication and recurrence rates with the highest scar satisfaction.
methodsTwo authors systematically reviewed the literature in the Cochrane, PubMed, and EMBASE databases (search date: 1975 to December 2nd, 2020) to identify studies comparing surgical outcomes of second branchial arch cyst removal. Authors appraised selected studies on directness of evidence and risk of bias. Results are reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.
resultsOut of the 2442 retrieved articles, 4 articles were included in the current review including a total of 140 operated cysts. Only 2 studies included pre-operatively infected cysts. Follow up ranged from 3 to 24 months. Complication rates ranged from 0 to 27.3% (conventional: [0-10.4%]; endoscopic/retro-auricular: [0-27.3%]). None of the patients presented with postoperative recurrence. Significantly higher scar satisfaction was found in adult patients who underwent endoscopic or retro-auricular hairline incision cyst removal.
conclusionNo recurrence of disease occurred during (at least) 3 months of follow up using either conventional surgery or endoscopic/retro-auricular techniques. Although more (temporary) complications occur using endoscopic and retro-auricular techniques, patients report a significantly higher scar satisfaction 3 to 6 months after surgery in comparison to the conventional technique. Future studies are needed to support these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.