Friedemann Zumbusch, Peter Schlattmann, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius
{"title":"Frontiers | 面神经重建治疗弛缓性面瘫:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Friedemann Zumbusch, Peter Schlattmann, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius","doi":"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1440953","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesTo determine the functional outcome after facial nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with flaccid facial paralysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on studies reporting outcomes after direct facial nerve suture (DFS), facial nerve interpositional graft suture (FIGS), hypoglossal–facial nerve suture (HFS), masseteric–facial nerve suture (MFS), and cross-face nerve suture (CFS). These studies were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers performed two-stage screening and data extraction. A favorable result was defined as a final House–Brackmann grade I–III and is presented as a ratio of all patients in percentage. Pooled proportions were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsFrom 4,932 screened records, 54 studies with 1,358 patients were included. A favorable result was achieved after DFS in 42.67% of the patients [confidence interval (CI): 26.05%–61.12%], after FIGS in 66.43% (CI: 55.99%–75.47%), after HFS in 63.89% (95% CI: 54.83%–72.05%), after MFS in 63.11% (CI: 38.53%–82.37%), and after CFS in 46.67% (CI: 24.09%–70.70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques (Q = 6.56, degrees of freedom = 4, p = 0.1611).ConclusionsThe established facial nerve reconstruction techniques including the single nerve cross-transfer techniques produce satisfactory results in most of the patients with permanent flaccid facial paralysis. An international consensus on standardized outcome measures would improve the comparability of facial reanimation techniques.","PeriodicalId":12564,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frontiers | Facial nerve reconstruction for flaccid facial paralysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Friedemann Zumbusch, Peter Schlattmann, Orlando Guntinas-Lichius\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fsurg.2024.1440953\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivesTo determine the functional outcome after facial nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with flaccid facial paralysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on studies reporting outcomes after direct facial nerve suture (DFS), facial nerve interpositional graft suture (FIGS), hypoglossal–facial nerve suture (HFS), masseteric–facial nerve suture (MFS), and cross-face nerve suture (CFS). These studies were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers performed two-stage screening and data extraction. A favorable result was defined as a final House–Brackmann grade I–III and is presented as a ratio of all patients in percentage. Pooled proportions were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsFrom 4,932 screened records, 54 studies with 1,358 patients were included. A favorable result was achieved after DFS in 42.67% of the patients [confidence interval (CI): 26.05%–61.12%], after FIGS in 66.43% (CI: 55.99%–75.47%), after HFS in 63.89% (95% CI: 54.83%–72.05%), after MFS in 63.11% (CI: 38.53%–82.37%), and after CFS in 46.67% (CI: 24.09%–70.70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques (Q = 6.56, degrees of freedom = 4, p = 0.1611).ConclusionsThe established facial nerve reconstruction techniques including the single nerve cross-transfer techniques produce satisfactory results in most of the patients with permanent flaccid facial paralysis. An international consensus on standardized outcome measures would improve the comparability of facial reanimation techniques.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1440953\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1440953","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
方法对报道直接面神经缝合(DFS)、面神经间隙移植缝合(FIGS)、舌下-面神经缝合(HFS)、颌面-面神经缝合(MFS)和交叉面神经缝合(CFS)术后效果的研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。这些研究是从 PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库中筛选出来的。两名独立审稿人进行了两阶段筛选和数据提取。良好结果的定义是最终的 House-Brackmann 分级为 I-III 级,并以所有患者的百分比表示。结果从 4932 份筛选记录中,共纳入了 54 项研究,1358 名患者。42.67%的患者在DFS[置信区间(CI):26.05%-61.12%]、66.43%的患者在FIGS(CI:55.99%-75.47%)、63.89%的患者在HFS(95% CI:54.83%-72.05%)、63.11%的患者在MFS(CI:38.53%-82.37%)和46.67%的患者在CFS(CI:24.09%-70.70%)后取得了良好的结果。结论对于大多数永久性弛缓性面瘫患者而言,包括单神经交叉转移技术在内的成熟面神经重建技术都能产生令人满意的效果。就标准化结果测量达成国际共识将提高面神经重建技术的可比性。
Frontiers | Facial nerve reconstruction for flaccid facial paralysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
ObjectivesTo determine the functional outcome after facial nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with flaccid facial paralysis.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on studies reporting outcomes after direct facial nerve suture (DFS), facial nerve interpositional graft suture (FIGS), hypoglossal–facial nerve suture (HFS), masseteric–facial nerve suture (MFS), and cross-face nerve suture (CFS). These studies were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers performed two-stage screening and data extraction. A favorable result was defined as a final House–Brackmann grade I–III and is presented as a ratio of all patients in percentage. Pooled proportions were calculated using random-effects models.ResultsFrom 4,932 screened records, 54 studies with 1,358 patients were included. A favorable result was achieved after DFS in 42.67% of the patients [confidence interval (CI): 26.05%–61.12%], after FIGS in 66.43% (CI: 55.99%–75.47%), after HFS in 63.89% (95% CI: 54.83%–72.05%), after MFS in 63.11% (CI: 38.53%–82.37%), and after CFS in 46.67% (CI: 24.09%–70.70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques (Q = 6.56, degrees of freedom = 4, p = 0.1611).ConclusionsThe established facial nerve reconstruction techniques including the single nerve cross-transfer techniques produce satisfactory results in most of the patients with permanent flaccid facial paralysis. An international consensus on standardized outcome measures would improve the comparability of facial reanimation techniques.
期刊介绍:
Evidence of surgical interventions go back to prehistoric times. Since then, the field of surgery has developed into a complex array of specialties and procedures, particularly with the advent of microsurgery, lasers and minimally invasive techniques. The advanced skills now required from surgeons has led to ever increasing specialization, though these still share important fundamental principles.
Frontiers in Surgery is the umbrella journal representing the publication interests of all surgical specialties. It is divided into several “Specialty Sections” listed below. All these sections have their own Specialty Chief Editor, Editorial Board and homepage, but all articles carry the citation Frontiers in Surgery.
Frontiers in Surgery calls upon medical professionals and scientists from all surgical specialties to publish their experimental and clinical studies in this journal. By assembling all surgical specialties, which nonetheless retain their independence, under the common umbrella of Frontiers in Surgery, a powerful publication venue is created. Since there is often overlap and common ground between the different surgical specialties, assembly of all surgical disciplines into a single journal will foster a collaborative dialogue amongst the surgical community. This means that publications, which are also of interest to other surgical specialties, will reach a wider audience and have greater impact.
The aim of this multidisciplinary journal is to create a discussion and knowledge platform of advances and research findings in surgical practice today to continuously improve clinical management of patients and foster innovation in this field.