Electrocautery, Harmonic, and Thunderbeat Instruments in Parotid Surgery: A Retrospective Comparative Study

The aim of this retrospective study has been to compare the surgical outcomes of patients undergoing superficial parotidectomy with three different instruments: bipolar electrocautery, ultrasound, and mixed energy instruments. The clinical records of 102 patients who had undergone superficial parotidectomy for benign tumors between January 2016 and April 2022 were considered. Based on the tool used during the surgery, the patients were divided into three study groups: classic electrocautery hemostasis group (CH group), ultrasonic instrument group (HA group), and combined energy instrument group (TB group). The duration of surgery, the total post-operative drainage volume, and the intra-operative blood loss were significantly higher in the CH group compared to the HA and the TB group, while the differences were not significant between the latter two groups. Facial nerve weakness was detected in 45.9% of the CH group, 12.5% of the HA group, and 21.2% of the TB group. The rate of facial nerve dysfunction in the CH group was significantly higher than in the HA group (0.011). In the patients who experienced post-operative facial nerve dysfunction, the recovery time was significantly shorter in the HA group compared to the CH and the TB group. The HA and TB groups have demonstrated comparable and significantly better surgical outcomes than bipolar electrocautery. Ultrasound instruments have been shown to cause, in comparison with the other techniques, a lower rate of temporary facial nerve dysfunction and, if this is present, lead to a faster spontaneous recovery time.