Comparative Outcomes of Drain and Drainless Techniques in Parotidectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study compares complications between drainless parotidectomies versus parotidectomies where drains were inserted post-operatively. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science databases. Review Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared outcomes of parotidectomy with and without intraoperative drain insertion. A comprehensive database search was conducted in accordance with PRISMA reporting guidelines, yielding 186 articles, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for randomized controlled trials. Post-operative complication rates – including hematoma, seroma, and sialocele formation – were extracted and analyzed. Results: The database search yielded 284 citations, of which 98 citations were omitted due to duplication. Of the remaining 186 citations, 142 were omitted during title/abstract screening, and the remaining 43 underwent full-text screening, of which 22 were excluded, resulting in 21 studies included in the systematic review and 5 being included in quantitative analysis. Across included studies, 3138 individuals underwent parotidectomy (2263 with drains and 875 without). No significant differences were found between drain and drainless groups in hematoma (OR = 0.9, CI: 0.14 to 5.7, P = .91) or sialocele/seroma formation (OR = 0.45, CI: 0.17 to 1.18, P = .10). In single-arm studies, hematoma rates were similar (1.03% with drains vs 0.5% without), while sialocele/seroma rates were higher in drainless cases (11.5% vs 6.4%). Conclusion: There was no significant difference in complication rates post-operatively between the drain and no drain groups, with an increased length of hospital stay in the drain group, and a trend toward higher seroma rates in the drainless group. Nevertheless, it is feasible to perform outpatient parotidectomy with drains.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".