Prevention of Frey Syndrome in Parotid Gland Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study discusses the anatomy and surgical techniques for the prevention of Frey syndrome. By performing only a partial superficial parotidectomy, we probably preserve the connection between the auriculotemporal nerve and the facial nerve. By suturing the remainder of the parotid gland tissue and the superficial musculoaponeurotic system (SMAS) back to the sternocleidomastoid muscle, an interposition is made. Furthermore, by extending the incision not too far cranially, the auriculotemporal nerve cutaneous branch is spared. We also tried to preserve part of the great auricular nerve (GAN). DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: One main institute (a tertiary referral centre) and one affiliated secondary centre. METHODS: Patients operated on for parotid gland tumours in our hospitals during the last 3 years underwent starch-iodine testing after at least 1 year of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of patients developing Frey syndrome. We hypothetically explored the importance of preserving both the auriculotemporal and the great auricular nerve. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients were operated on for a parotid gland tumour. Forty-five (56%) of these patients could be followed up for more than 1 year. Four patients had a positive starch-iodine test. Two of these underwent revision surgery and had symptoms already before our procedure. About half of the patients had a SMAS interposition performed. All four patients with Frey syndrome did not have a SMAS interposition. CONCLUSION: We advocate our technique in primary benign tumours. Further research to clarify the parasympathetic and sympathetic function of the great auricular nerve and the cutaneous branch of the auriculotemporal nerve is necessary.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".