Objective/Hypothesis: Current literature has confirmed the benefits of sialendoscopy for the treatment of juvenile recurrent parotitis (JRP). However, this procedure is often performed unilaterally, although the disease can affect both sides. This article investigated the clinical course of the contralateral parotid (CL) gland in children requiring unilateral sialendoscopy with the goal of clarifying the necessity of primary bilateral sialendoscopy.Study Design: Prospective cohort study in a tertiary center. Methods: Over an eight-year period, 77 children with JRP underwent unilateral sialendoscopy. We observed the clinical course of the CL parotid over a minimum follow-up period of 24 months. New episodes of sialadenitis were recorded on both sides along with the need for a second sialendoscopy. These data were correlated with the preoperative symptoms of the contralateral side as well as ultrasound (U/S) findings at baseline assessment.Results: In total, six children required sialendoscopy on the CL side (7.8%), 62 children remained asymptomatic or with scarce swellings (80.5%), and nine children improved (11.7%). The preoperative U/S findings on the CL side positively correlated with the number of postoperative swellings. The proportion of children needing CL sialendoscopy was higher (21.4%) among children needing a second sialendoscopy on the operated side.Conclusions: In the long term, the vast majority of children needing unilateral sialendoscopy do not require similar treatment of the CL parotid gland. However, a history of bilateral swellings along with U/S findings of parenchymal disorganization on the CL side significantly increases the risk of needing further sialendoscopy at a later time.

No abstract

Background: The standard treatment for reconstructing the middle vault of the nose is to use spreader grafts. Recently, an alternative technique using spreader flaps has become widely accepted. Methodology: A literature search was performed in ΜEDLINE, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library and multiple trial registries. The systematic review included studies evaluating the effectiveness of spreader flaps, with or without comparison to the spreader graft technique, in patients who had undergone primary rhinoplasty. Results: Thirteen studies with a total of 500 patients met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed systematically. All studies measured breathing function improvement. Additionally, aesthetic improvement/satisfaction was evaluated in seven studies. The use of spreader flaps seems to improve breathing function, as seen in twelve out of thirteen studies. Furthermore, the studies assessing the aesthetic aspect of a primary rhinoplasty showed that spreader flaps can provide satisfactory results. The comparison between spreader flaps and spreader grafts showed similar results in most studies dealing with this topic in both the breathing function improvement and aesthetic improvement/satisfaction domains. Conclusions: This study is the first systematic review assessing the functional and aesthetic outcomes of spreader flaps in primary rhinoplasty, and it shows encouraging results comparable to those of spreader grafts.