Performing parotidectomy postoperative follow-ups via telemedicine: Experience at a tertiary care, multiple-surgeon otolaryngology center

• Published in: Journal of telemedicine and telecare 2024-06, Vol.30 (4), p.739-746
• Main Authors: Antezana, Luis A, Xie, Katherine Z, Yin, Linda X, Bowen, Andrew J, Yeakel, Sarah, Nassiri, Ashley M, Moore, Eric J
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Otolaryngology; Pain; Patients; Retrospective Studies; Surgeons; Telemedicine; Tertiary Healthcare
• ISSN: 1357-633X; 1758-1109
• DOI: 10.1177/1357633X221095319

Introduction We examined the suitability of using a video visit platform to perform postoperative parotidectomy evaluation at a tertiary care, multiple-surgeon otolaryngology center. Methods A retrospective case review was conducted of patients who underwent parotidectomy and postoperative video visits between November 2019 and December 2020. Success of video visit, plan if applicable, and post-visit outcomes were reviewed. Video visits were designated as successful if the physician could assess for complications in the postoperative course (e.g. first bite pain, Frey syndrome, ear numbness, unplanned visits to the emergency department, unplanned return to the operating room), perform examination of facial nerve function, and formulate care recommendations per clinical judgement without deferment of recommendations for a subsequent in-person visit. Results There were 96 postoperative video visits with 91 unique parotidectomy patients. Demographics: 28/63 male/female; average age, 54y. All video visits were suitable for successful postoperative parotidectomy patient evaluation. Eight visits (8.3%) consisted of patients presenting with common postoperative complications (e.g. eye dryness, first bite pain) and warranted care recommendations. In only two cases did the patient require further in-person procedural (hematoma evacuation, seroma aspiration) follow-ups. For the other 91.7% of visits (n = 88), no additional recommendations were required as patients experienced uncomplicated postoperative courses. Of all the patients, 26.1% (n = 23) were instructed to follow-up for routine surveillance. All other patients, 73.9% (n = 65) were instructed to follow-up as needed. Conclusion Postoperative parotidectomy evaluation is highly amenable to being performed by video. A telemedicine option offers convenience for patients in the majority of cases without compromising clinical assessment and judgment for the physician.