Background: Parotidectomies are indicated for a variety of reasons. Regardless of the indication for surgery, facial reanimation may be required because of facial nerve sacrifice or iatrogenic damage. In these cases, facial restoration performed concurrently with ablative surgery is considered the gold standard, and delayed reanimation is usually not attempted. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent parotidectomies from 2009 to 2022 in a single institution was performed. Indications, surgical techniques, and outcomes of an algorithmic template were applied to these cases using the Sunnybrook, Terzis scores, and Smile Index. A comparison was made between immediate vs. late repairs. Results: Of a total of 90 patients who underwent parotidectomy, 17 (15.3%) had a radical parotidectomy, and 73 (84.7%) had a total or superficial parotidectomy. Among those who underwent complete removal of the gland and nerve sacrifice, eight patients (47.1%) had facial restoration. There were four patients each in the immediate (n = 4) and late repair (n = 4) groups. Surgical techniques ranged from cable grafts to vascularized cross facial nerve grafts (sural communicating nerve flap as per the Koshima procedure) and vascularized nerve flaps (chimeric vastus lateralis and anterolateral thigh flaps, and superficial circumflex perforator flap with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve). Conclusions: The algorithm between one technique and another should take into consideration age, comorbidities, soft tissue defects, presence of facial nerve branches for reinnervation, and donor site morbidity. While immediate facial nerve repair is ideal, there is still benefit in performing a delayed repair in this algorithm.
Keywords: facial reanimation; radical parotidectomies.