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

• Published in: European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology Vol. 278; no. 10; pp. 3933 - 3940
• Main Authors: Tunca, Merve, Süslü, Nilda Sütay, Karaosmanoğlu, Ayça A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01-10-2021
• Subjects: Head and Neck; Head and Neck Surgery; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Neurosurgery; Otorhinolaryngology; Reconstruction; Frey syndrome; Aesthetic; Parotidectomy; Lipofilling; En-bloc fat graft
• DOI: 10.1007/s00405-020-06570-y
• EISSN: 1434-4726
• ISSN: 0937-4477

Purpose
Reconstruction 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.
Methods
We 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.
Results
Among 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
3
,
p
 = 0.754). We found a significant difference in decreased presence of Frey Syndrome and increased satisfation rates of cosmetic appearance in P-EBFG and P-LFT, in comparison to P-NR (
p
 < 0.001). There was no significant difference in fat resorption rates between P-EBFG (50.75 + 21.20%) and P-LFT (48.59 + 17.93%) (
p
 = 0.771).
Conclusion
Both en-bloc fat graft and lipofilling techniques have been found to be safe and to have similar fat resorption rates for reconstruction after parotidectomy.