ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Permanent facial palsy and recurrence rate after surgery for benign parotid tumors: pairwise and network meta-analysis of different parotid surgery techniques.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Parotid surgery for benign tumors has shifted from total parotidectomy (TP) toward less invasive procedures such as partial parotidectomy (PP) and extracapsular dissection (ECD). This study compared these techniques regarding tumor recurrence rate (TRR) and permanent facial palsy rate (FPR). Methods: A systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis were performed on studies reporting TRR and FPR for TP, PP, and ECD. Eligible publications were identified in PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library through 2024. Rates were analyzed using arcsine transformation and arcsine differences (ASD) with random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Of 1,249 detected publications, 23 studies with 4,674 adult patients were included. Mean follow-up was 66.0 ± 56.5 months. The average TRR was 2.9 ± 2.9%, and the average FPR was 3.0 ± 5.5%. Network meta-analysis showed no significant TRR difference for ECD (ASD: -0.00; 95% CI: -0.06-0.06) or TP (ASD: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.17-0.04) vs. PP in the random-effects model. For FPR, no significant differences were found between TP and PP or between ECD and PP. Only one study compared ECD with TP for FPR, preventing a meta-analysis. Conclusions: The findings suggest that, when feasible, ECD appears to offer recurrence risks similar to PP, while both may have slightly higher TRR than TP. Permanent facial palsy risk seems comparable between ECD and PP and may be lower for ECD/PP than for TP. The results should be interpreted with caution, as there is a lack of studies with long-term follow-up. Well-designed randomized surgical studies with long-term follow-up are needed.
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.