Dataset Information

Facial reanimation with interposition nerve graft or masseter nerve transfer: a comparative retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: Both interposition nerve grafts and masseter nerve transfers have been successfully used for facial reanimation after irreversible injuries to the cranial portion of the facial nerve. However, no comparative study of these two procedures has yet been reported. In this two-site, two-arm, retrospective case review study, 32 patients were included. Of these, 17 patients (eight men and nine women, mean age 42.1 years) underwent interposition nerve graft after tumor extirpation or trauma between 2003 and 2006 in the Ear Institute, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, and 15 patients (six men and nine women, mean age 40.6 years) underwent masseter-to-facial nerve transfer after tumor extirpation or trauma between November 2010 and February 2016 in Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, China. More patients achieved House-Brackmann III recovery after masseter nerve repair than interposition nerve graft repair (15/15 vs. 12/17). The mean oral commissure excursion ratio was also higher in patients who underwent masseter nerve transfer than in patients subjected to an interposition nerve graft. These findings suggest that masseter nerve transfer results in strong oral commissure excursion, avoiding obvious synkinesis, while an interposition nerve graft provides better resting symmetry. This study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, China (approval No. SH9H-2019-T332-1) on December 12, 2019.

SUBMITTER: Wang WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8552848 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA review of the role of masseteric nerve transfer is needed to guide its use in facial reanimation.ObjectiveTo systematically review the available literature, and, when applicable, analyze the combined outcomes of masseteric nerve transfer to better define its role in reanimation and to guide further research.Data sourcesTwo independent researchers conducted the review using PubMed-NCBI and Scopus literature databases for studies on masseteric nerve transfer for facial nerve paralysis.Study selectionStudies that examined masseter nerve transfer with additional cranial nerve transposition/coaptation or muscle flap were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisLiterature review and data extraction followed established PRISMA guidelines. Two researchers extracted data independently.Main outcomes and measuresThe main planned outcomes for the study were quantitative results of facial nerve movement after nerve transfer including oral commissure movement and time to nerve recovery.ResultsA total of 13 articles met inclusion criteria with a total of 183 patients undergoing masseteric nerve transfer. From those studies, there were a total of 183 patients who underwent masseteric nerve transfer. There were 85 men and 98 women with a mean (SD) age of 43 (12.2) years and mean (SD) follow up examination after surgery of 22 (7.6) months. Mean (SD) duration of nerve paralysis was 14 (6) months. Most common cause of paralysis was cerebellopontine angle tumors (81%). Six studies coapted the masseteric nerve to the main facial nerve trunk, whereas 7 used distal branches (buccal or zygomatic). Four studies used interposition nerve grafts with great auricular nerve. Two measures, improvement in oral commissure excursion and length from reanimation to facial movement, were measured consistently across the studies. Pooled analysis showed time from surgery to first facial movement, described in 10 studies, to be 4.95 months (95% CI, 3.66 to 6.24). Distal branch coaptation improved time to recovery vs main branch coaptation, 3.76 vs 5.76 months (95% CI, -0.33 to 4.32), but mean difference was not significant. The use of interposition graft significantly delayed time of nerve recovery, 6.24 vs 4.06 months (95% CI, 0.20 to 4.16). When controlled for main trunk coaptation only, interposition nerve graft delayed recovery but difference was no longer statistically significant, 6.24 vs 4.75 months (95% CI, -0.94 to 3.92). Reported complications were minor and rare occurring in only 6.5% (12 of 183) of patients.Conclusions and relevanceThe masseteric nerve was found to be a good option for nerve transfer in this patient population, and showed favorable results in both time to nerve recovery and improvement in oral commissure excursion.Level of evidenceNA.

Project description:Upper brachial plexus injuries to the C5/6 roots or axillary nerve can result in severe deficits in upper limb function. Current techniques to reinnervate the deltoid muscle utilise the well-described transfer of radial nerve branches to triceps to the axillary nerve. However, in around 25% of patients, there is a failure of sufficient deltoid reinnervation. It is unclear in the literature if deltoid reanimation should be attempted with a nerve transfer from a weak but functioning triceps nerve. The authors present the largest series of triceps to axillary nerve transfers for deltoid reanimation in order to answer this clinical question. Seventy-seven consecutive patients of a single surgeon were stratified and analysed in four groups: (1) normal triceps at presentation, (2) abnormal triceps at presentation recovering to clinically normal function preoperatively, (3) abnormal triceps at presentation remaining abnormal preoperatively, and lastly (4) where pre-operative triceps function was deemed insufficient for use, requiring alternative reconstruction for deltoid reanimation. The authors considered deltoid re-animation of ≥ M4 as successful for the purpose of this study. Median Medical Research Council (MRC) values demonstrate group 1 achieves this successfully (M5), while median values for groups 2-4 result in M4 power (albeit with decreasing interquartile ranges). Median post-operative shoulder abduction active range of motion (AROM) values were represented by 170° (85-180) in group 1, 117.5° (97.5-140) in group 2, 90° (35-150) in group 3, and 60° (40-155) in group 4. For both post-operative assessments, subgroup analyses demonstrated statistically significant differences when comparing group 1 with groups 3 and 4 (p < 0.05), while all the other group to group pairwise comparisons did not reach significance. The authors postulated that triceps deficiency can act as a surrogate marker of a more extensive plexus injury and may predict poorer outcomes if the weakness persists representing the trending differences between groups 2 and 3. However, given no statistical differences were demonstrated between groups 3 and 4, the authors conclude that utilising an abnormal triceps nerve that demonstrates sufficient strength and redundancy intraoperatively is preferable to alternative transfers for deltoid reanimation. Lastly, in group 4 patients where triceps nerves are damaged and unusable for nerve transfer, alternative operations can also achieve sufficient outcomes and should be considered for restoration of shoulder abduction.

Dataset Information

Facial reanimation with interposition nerve graft or masseter nerve transfer: a comparative retrospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets