This study provides first efficient data on short- (6 weeks) versus long-term (13 years) HRQoL after parotidectomy using the validated disease-specific questionnaire POI-8. Key goal in parotid surgical approaches for treatment of benign lesions is not only to remove the entire tumour and to minimize morbidity but also to maintain patients’ quality of life. However, only few studies address patients’ perspective on complications and the related QoL [5, 7–9, 11–13], but predominantly in a short follow-up after parotidectomy - usually 6 months or 1–2 years - and by using different symptom-specific QoL assessments. Beutner et al. [8] reported no changes in QoL in 34 patients one year after superficial parotidectomy for benign diseases compared with preoperative answers using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-H&N 35. Nitzan et al. utilized a modified version of the University of Washington Quality of Life Questionnaire and could detect subjective sequelae like altered sensation, change in appearance, Frey’s syndrome and pain during at least 1-year follow-up period which did not significantly affect QoL [9]. New data of Bulut et al. described for the first time a significant increase in QOL in the long term (100 months postoperatively) compared to short term (2 weeks postoperatively) by focusing on sensory dysfunction resulting from great auricular nerve (GAN) sacrifice versus preservation in parotid surgery [13]. Since most studies have only a short follow-up, it raises the question what impacted the patients the most on QOL more than 10 years after parotidectomy. To our knowledge, this is the longest follow-up reported after benign parotid surgery. From patient’s perspective, hypoesthesia, followed by fear of revision surgery posed the major problems in long-term follow-up whereas facial palsy posed the minor problem. In the literature, numbness or uncomfortable sensations of the skin are well known as dominant, postoperative short-term sequelae after parotidectomy [5, 7, 9, 11, 14]. Indeed, hypoesthesia is of greatest concern to the patients 6 months (90%) and still 2 years after surgery (78%) [7]. Porter and Wood [15] observed that the majority of sensory improvement occurred in the first 6 months. Ryan and Fee described that at a mean point of 2 years, symptoms had either completely ablated or stabilized [16]. The great auricular nerve (GAN) originates from the cervical plexus at the levels of the second and third cervical nerves. It supplies sensation to the skin overlying the lower aspect of the pinna and angle of the mandible and is divided into anterior and posterior branches. The anterior branch is usually sacrificed whereas a posterior branch can technically be preserved [5]. That’s why, the area overlying the parotid gland and at the angle of the mandibule were slightly more affected here than the area of auricle and along the anterior border of the sternocleidomastoid muscle. In this context, Bulut et al. reported that GAN preservation did significantly improve sensation in short- but not in long-term, nor did it increase QOL in long term when compared to GAN sacrifice [13]. Based on the observation period of 12–16 years after parotidectomy, we could show that hypoesthesia significantly improved over the years (p < 0.001) but still remains without limiting patients in QoL, a clinically relevant finding here. Indeed, 77.2% of ST-patients were disturbed by hypoesthesia six weeks after surgery with an overall impairment rate of 64.9% while 54.1% of the LT-cohort named sensation loss still as a problem with an impairment rate of 27%. In the LT-cohort, hypoesthesia was predominantly characterized as a “marginal” to “moderate” problem (51.3%) problem; only 2.8% of patients considered it as “severe” or “the worst problem”. Consequently, patients should be preoperatively informed about the possible prolonged or permanent hypoesthesia. According to data of Bulut et al. [13], we only found a positive association between intraoperative preservation of the GAN and improved hypoesthesia in the ST-cohort (p = 0.028), not in the LT-cohort. Finally, we can conclude that patients seem to adapt to the postoperative functional impairment over time and focus less on the reduced ability to feel temperature and pain on the facial skin over the parotid gland and auricle. 42.1% of the ST-cohort characterized pain on the site of surgery significantly more problematic than the LT-cohort (p = 0.002). Only 23% of LT-study patients affirmed pain and painful sensations 12–16 years after surgery, 13.5% of them described the pain as “marginal”, 9.5% of them as “slight” and “moderate”, no one as “severe” or as “the worst problem”. Wolber et al. [7] and Nitzan et al. [9] underlined our results by reporting an incidence of postoperative pain of 30–40% during a short follow-up. In accord with Kaya et al. [10], we can consequently argue that pain is an important early complication following parotidectomy which improves in the long-term. Strikingly, the ST- and LT-cohort did not significantly differ in scar, facial palsy, substance loss, Frey’s syndrome, xerostomia and anxiety of revision surgery. Due to the fact that the total POI-8 score significantly improved from the mean POI-8 score of 7.47 six weeks after surgery to the mean POI-8 score of 5.15 13 years after surgery (p = 0.04), we can conclude that parotidectomy did not seem to be detrimental to QOL in the long run. Examinations on the same patient collective (SLT-cohort) underlined our results herein presented: hypoesthesia (p < 0.001) and pain (p = 0.004) had significantly improved from patient’s perspective with a significant POI-8 reduction from 8.24 to 5.15 13 years after surgery, indicating higher disease-specific QoL. Generally, global quality of life is a multidimensional construct with contributions from economic, social, interpersonal, physical and psychological aspects [8]. Thus, subjective perception of post-parotidectomy complications might be influenced by these mentioned factors unrelated to surgery [2] as disadvantage of self-reported measures. Besides, no objective testing method exists for accurate evaluation of QOL in the head and neck region [13]. Another limitation of our study is the different group size in the ST-, LT- and SLT-cohort. Consequently, further prospective studies with a larger sample size are needed. In summary, we see the strength of our study in the first reported, longest follow-up period of 12–16 years after parotidectomy, numerous group comparisons in different (LT, ST) and same patient cohorts (SLT_short vs. SLT_long), usage of a validated, commonly used patient-reported outcome measure POI-8 and in the retro- and prospective study design.