The impact of accurate documentation of parotid tumor operative reports on secondary surgical procedure

Aim: The accuracy of primary operative reports (OpR) was assessed based on a tertiary referral department’s experience with reoperations of parotid gland tumors, in order to develop a comprehensive operative report schema. Material and methods: The retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Otolaryngology and Laryngological Surgery, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poland. Out of 1154 surgeries performed over a 10-year period, 71 patients underwent reoperation. Their OpR were categorized into accurate and non-accurate, and the reoperation field and reoperation course were categorized as anticipated or unanticipated, according to the defined criteria. The main outcome measure was the impact of accuracy of the first OpR on reoperation course. Results: In this series, OpR were 39% (14/36) accurate, 61% (22/36) non-accurate. Reoperation fields were 16% (11/71) anticipated, 37% (26/71) unanticipated. Reoperation courses were 37% (26/71) anticipated, 63% (45/71) unanticipated. An anticipated reoperation course followed 20% (5/26) of accurate and 20% (5/26) of non-accurate primary OpR. An unanticipated reoperation course followed 20% (9/45) of accurate and 40% (18/45) of non-accurate OpR. There is no significant relationship between the reoperation course and the accuracy of the first OpR [Chi2(1) = 0.69; p = 0.40466]. The most common variable that affected non-accuracy of the OpR was facial nerve function after surgery (6/12). Discussion: The operative report should be based on transparent criteria, a robust classification and a comprehensive protocol. This will improve follow-up and facilitate the planning of reoperation.