Parotidectomy: assessment of a surgical technique including facelift incision and SMAS advancement.

[BACKGROUND] Despite its proven safety and its relevance regarding the cosmetic outcome, the SMAS-lifting technique is not a routine procedure for many surgeons.

[AIM] To compare the classical (subcutaneous flap and neck incision) with the SMAS-lifting techniques for parotidectomies from the patient's perspective.

[PATIENTS AND METHODS] Both procedures are described, tricks are pointed out. In both procedures the posterior branch of the great auricular nerve was not preserved, hence the two procedures were not evaluated regarding sensitivity of the auricle and preauricular area. Forty consecutive patients were asked to classify their concerns before (1-4 months) and 1 year after surgery (10 classical technique and 30 SMAS-lifting technique).

[RESULT] Before parotidectomy, patients were concerned in a decreasing order with the facial nerve function, the scar, the soft-tissue defect in the dorsal part of the cheek and Frey's syndrome. Following use of the classical technique, patients were concerned in decreasing order with the soft-tissue defect, the scar and Frey's syndrome. Following the SMAS technique, no one was concerned with the scar, Frey's syndrome, or the soft tissue defect although a slight asymmetry could still be noticed.

[CONCLUSION] The SMAS-lifting technique might possibly appear to offer a new standard procedure for parotidectomy, except for malignant tumours or in obese patients.