Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39398678›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Extracapsular Dissection Versus Traditional Parotid Surgery: A Comprehensive Review of Techniques and Outcomes.

Saurabh Gawand, Rajesh G Gattani, Chava Aravind Kumar, Apoorva Pande

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Saurabh GawandGeneral Surgery, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Rajesh G GattaniGeneral Surgery, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Chava Aravind KumarGeneral Surgery, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.
Apoorva PandePathology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research, Wardha, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Parotid tumours, encompassing both benign and malignant forms, present significant challenges in surgical management. Traditional parotid surgery, including various forms of parotidectomy, has long been the standard approach, aiming for complete tumour removal while addressing potential complications such as facial nerve injury. However, extracapsular dissection (ECD) has emerged as an alternative technique, focusing on excising the tumour along with a thin layer of surrounding tissue, which may offer benefits in preserving healthy glandular tissue and reducing postoperative complications. This review comprehensively compares ECD and traditional parotid surgery techniques, evaluating their efficacy, outcomes, and associated complications. We analyse clinical studies and evidence to assess differences in tumour recurrence rates, facial nerve function preservation, and overall patient recovery. Additionally, the review explores the indications for each surgical approach, considering tumour characteristics and patient-specific factors. The findings suggest that while ECD may offer advantages in terms of reduced postoperative complications and improved preservation of glandular tissue, traditional parotidectomy remains a robust method for managing complex cases. This review aims to inform clinical decision-making by presenting a detailed comparison of both techniques, ultimately guiding surgeons in selecting the most appropriate approach for individual patients.

Indexed as

extracapsular dissectionfacial nerve injuryparotid tumourssurgical outcomestraditional parotid surgerytumour recurrence

Identifiers

PMID39398678
PMCPMC11467613

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.