Utility of Applying Pressure Dressing Following Parotidectomy Compared to Conventional Dressing: A Benefit or Not?

• Published in: Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery Vol. 82; no. 7; pp. 878 - 882
• Main Authors: Kruatreepradit, Pattamaporn, Tangjaturonrasme, Napadon, Samuckkeethum, Wisarut
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.07.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Bandages; Compression Bandages; Drainage - methods; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Parotid Gland - surgery; Parotid Neoplasms - surgery; Postoperative Care; Surgery; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0278-2391; 1531-5053; 1531-5053
• DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2024.03.038

Post-parotidectomy wound dressing techniques lack of robust evidence, creating variation in practice. The choice between conventional and pressure dressing is typically based on expert opinions and individual preferences and the anticipated benefits of reduced drainage and shorter drain retention in pressure dressing hasn't demonstrated yet. The purpose of this study is to assess the advantage of pressure dressing following parotidectomy compared to conventional dressing. This study was an open-label randomized controlled trial recruiting the patients aged 18 and above undergoing parotidectomy at the Otolaryngology Department of King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital between March 2021 and September 2022. Our exclusion criteria were as following: (1) underwent parotidectomy combined with neck dissection, (2) prior irradiation to the parotid gland or head and neck region, (3) prior parotidectomy within the previous year, (4) consumption of anticholinergic medications, (5) bleeding disorders or coagulopathies. The predictor variable was postoperative dressing, and subjects were randomly assigned to pressure or conventional dressing. The primary outcome variables were drain output (ml) measured every 8 hours and reported in the term of total drain output and duration of drain use. The secondary outcome variables were post-parotidectomy complications (if any), complications from the pressure dressing and pain scores. The covariates were underlying disease, smoking, alcohol drinking, types of parotidectomy (extension of surgery), and pathologic result. The appropriate univariate and bivariate statistics were computed, and the level of statistical significance was set at P value < .05. A total of 40 patients were enrolled, with 20 in each group. Average age was 59.10 ± 10.60 years in the pressure dressing group and 55.70 ± 18.90 years in the conventional dressing group. Baseline characteristics were the same in both groups. The average volume of drain output in the pressure dressing group was 44.25 ± 25.20 ml, compared to 37.05 ± 22.74 ml in the conventional dressing group (P = .34). Moreover, the average duration of drain placement for the pressure dressing group was 27.65 ± 9.86 hours, while it was 26.90 ± 11.23 hours for the conventional group (P = .83). Notably, there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding sialocele and pain scores. Furthermore, no complications from the application of pressure dressing were observed. Pressure dressing does not provide significant benefits over conventional dressing after parotidectomy concerning drain output, duration of drain placement, or surgical complications.