Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Endoscopic parotidectomy reduces blood loss and drain output but clinical impact is limitedEndoscopic surgery shows lower blood loss for parotid gland tumors

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider endoscopic parotidectomy as a feasible alternative with modest perioperative benefits, but clinical impact is limited.

This meta-analysis of 1188 adult patients undergoing parotidectomy compared endoscopically-assisted or fully endoscopic parotidectomy with conventional open parotidectomy. The primary outcomes were perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drain output, drain duration, salivary fistula formation, auricular skin numbness, Frey syndrome, temporary facial nerve dysfunction, permanent facial nerve paralysis, and surgical site infection.

Key findings: Intraoperative blood loss was significantly reduced in the endoscopic group (MD -42.28 mL, 95% CI -61.56 to -23.01). Postoperative drain output was also lower (MD -40.73 mL, 95% CI -68.60 to -12.86). Temporary facial nerve dysfunction had a lower odds ratio in the endoscopic group. However, there were no significant differences in tumor diameter, operative time, drain duration, salivary fistula formation, auricular skin numbness, Frey syndrome, permanent facial nerve paralysis, or surgical site infection.

Limitations noted by the authors include small absolute magnitude of differences suggesting limited clinical impact, limited number of studies, regional concentration of available evidence, and substantial heterogeneity across several outcomes. Overall certainty of evidence was low. The findings suggest endoscopic parotidectomy is a feasible alternative with modest perioperative advantages, but not a clearly superior technique.

When patients face surgery for tumors in the parotid gland, they often worry about how much bleeding will occur and what the recovery will look like. A review of data from 1,188 patients compared two ways to remove these tumors: a conventional open surgery and an endoscopically assisted or fully endoscopic approach.

The findings show that the endoscopic method led to significantly less blood loss during the operation and lower drainage amounts afterward. However, other major factors like the time spent in surgery, the size of the tumor removed, and the risk of infection were similar for both methods. Importantly, serious risks like permanent facial nerve paralysis remained low and comparable across both surgical styles.

While the endoscopic approach is a feasible alternative that offers some perioperative benefits, the evidence comes with notes of caution. The study noted that many differences were small in absolute terms, meaning the practical impact might be modest for many patients. Because the data comes from a limited number of studies and shows significant variety across different outcomes, the overall certainty of these findings is low.

What this means for you:
Endoscopic surgery reduces blood loss during parotid tumor removal but offers similar safety and cosmetic results.

Common questions

Is endoscopic surgery safer than traditional surgery for parotid tumors?

Both methods are comparable regarding serious risks. The study found that rates of surgical site infection and permanent facial nerve paralysis were low and similar in both the endoscopic and conventional groups. However, patients undergoing endoscopic procedures experienced lower rates of temporary facial nerve dysfunction.

What are the main benefits of using an endoscopic approach?

The primary benefits found for the endoscopic group were a significant reduction in blood loss during surgery and a lower amount of drainage needed after the operation. These results suggest it is a feasible alternative to conventional surgery, though other outcomes like recovery time and infection rates did not differ significantly.

How certain are these findings regarding endoscopic parotid surgery?

The overall certainty of the evidence is low. This is because the results come from a limited number of studies, have a lot of variation across different outcomes, and some of the measured differences were small enough that their practical impact on daily life might be limited.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 1,188
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Endoscopically-assisted parotid gland surgery has been increasingly adopted as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional open parotidectomy, aiming to improve perioperative outcomes and cosmetic results while maintaining surgical safety. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized contemporary comparative evidence on endoscopic versus conventional parotid gland surgery. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar was conducted from inception to December 14, 2025. Observational and interventional studies comparing endoscopically-assisted or fully endoscopic parotidectomy with conventional open surgery in adult patients were included. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, with heterogeneity quantified using the I statistic. Eleven studies involving 1188 patients were included. Tumor diameter and operative time did not differ significantly between the endoscopic and conventional groups. Endoscopic parotidectomy was associated with significantly reduced intraoperative blood loss (MD -42.28 mL, 95% CI -61.56 to -23.01) and lower postoperative drain output (MD -40.73 mL, 95% CI -68.60 to -12.86). No statistically significant differences were observed for drain duration, salivary fistula formation, auricular skin numbness, or Frey syndrome. A lower OR of temporary facial nerve dysfunction was observed in the endoscopic group, while permanent facial nerve paralysis and surgical site infection rates were low and comparable between approaches. All included studies were of moderate methodological quality, and the overall certainty of evidence was low. Endoscopic parotid gland surgery appears to be a feasible alternative to conventional parotid gland surgery in selected patients, providing modest perioperative advantages without compromising postoperative outcomes. However, the small absolute magnitude of these differences suggests limited clinical impact, indicating that this approach represents a cosmetically favorable and safe option rather than a clearly superior technique. Given the limited number of studies, regional concentration of the available evidence, and substantial heterogeneity across several outcomes, further high-quality, multicenter prospective studies are needed to better define its clinical significance and generalizability.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.