• Something wrong with this record ?

Restoring the spontaneous smile through free functional muscle transfer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the last twenty years' experience

KC. Bayezid, S. Morkuzu, E. Karabulut, A. Bajus, L. Streit

. 2024 ; 88 (-) : 196-207. [pub] 20231031

Language English Country Netherlands

Document type Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review, Journal Article

BACKGROUND: The recovery of the spontaneous smile has become a primary focus in facial reanimation surgery and its major determinant is the selected neurotizer. We aimed to compare the spontaneity outcomes of the most preferred neurotization methods in free functional muscle transfer for long-standing facial paralysis. METHODS: The Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed databases were queried with 21 keywords. All clinical studies from the last 20 years reporting the postoperative spontaneity rate for specified neurotization strategies [cross-face nerve graft (CFNG), contralateral facial nerve (CLFN), motor nerve to the masseter (MNM), and dual innervation (DI)] were included. A meta-analysis of prevalence was performed using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, I2 statistic, and generic inverse variance with a random-effects model. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess bias and study quality. RESULTS: The literature search produced 2613 results and 473 unique citations for facial reanimation. Twenty-nine studies including 2046 patients were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis of eligible data (1952 observations from 23 studies) showed statistically significant differences between the groups (CFNG: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.00, CLFN: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00, MNM: 0.26; 95% CI, 0.05-0.54, DI: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00, P < 0.001). In pairwise comparisons, statistically significant differences were found between MNM and other neurotization strategies (P < 0.001 in CFNG compared with MNM, P = 0.013 for CLFN compared with MNM, P < 0.001 for DI compared with MNM). CONCLUSIONS: DI- and CLFN-driven strategies achieved the most promising outcomes, whereas MNM showed the potential to elicit spontaneous smile at a lower extent. Our meta-analysis was limited primarily by incongruency between spontaneity assessment systems. Consensus on a standardized tool would enable more effective comparisons of the outcomes.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24007792
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240618104352.0
007      
ta
008      
240412e20231031ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.10.124 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37988971
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Bayezid, K Can $u Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Restoring the spontaneous smile through free functional muscle transfer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the last twenty years' experience / $c KC. Bayezid, S. Morkuzu, E. Karabulut, A. Bajus, L. Streit
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: The recovery of the spontaneous smile has become a primary focus in facial reanimation surgery and its major determinant is the selected neurotizer. We aimed to compare the spontaneity outcomes of the most preferred neurotization methods in free functional muscle transfer for long-standing facial paralysis. METHODS: The Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed databases were queried with 21 keywords. All clinical studies from the last 20 years reporting the postoperative spontaneity rate for specified neurotization strategies [cross-face nerve graft (CFNG), contralateral facial nerve (CLFN), motor nerve to the masseter (MNM), and dual innervation (DI)] were included. A meta-analysis of prevalence was performed using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, I2 statistic, and generic inverse variance with a random-effects model. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess bias and study quality. RESULTS: The literature search produced 2613 results and 473 unique citations for facial reanimation. Twenty-nine studies including 2046 patients were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis of eligible data (1952 observations from 23 studies) showed statistically significant differences between the groups (CFNG: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.00, CLFN: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00, MNM: 0.26; 95% CI, 0.05-0.54, DI: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00, P < 0.001). In pairwise comparisons, statistically significant differences were found between MNM and other neurotization strategies (P < 0.001 in CFNG compared with MNM, P = 0.013 for CLFN compared with MNM, P < 0.001 for DI compared with MNM). CONCLUSIONS: DI- and CLFN-driven strategies achieved the most promising outcomes, whereas MNM showed the potential to elicit spontaneous smile at a lower extent. Our meta-analysis was limited primarily by incongruency between spontaneity assessment systems. Consensus on a standardized tool would enable more effective comparisons of the outcomes.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a usmívání se $x fyziologie $7 D012904
650    _2
$a výraz obličeje $7 D005149
650    12
$a faciální paralýza $x chirurgie $7 D005158
650    _2
$a nervus facialis $x chirurgie $7 D005154
650    _2
$a musculus masseter $x inervace $7 D008406
650    12
$a nervový transfer $x metody $7 D016067
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Morkuzu, Suat $u Institute for Reconstructive Surgery, Houston Methodist Hospital, Weill Cornell School of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States
700    1_
$a Karabulut, Erdem $u Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
700    1_
$a Bajus, Adam $u Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic $7 xx0318567
700    1_
$a Streit, Libor $u Department of Burns and Plastic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic; Department of Plastic and Aesthetic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Electronic address: libor.streit@med.muni.cz
773    0_
$w MED00008968 $t Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery $x 1878-0539 $g Roč. 88 (20231031), s. 196-207
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37988971 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240412 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240618104353 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2081655 $s 1217559
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2024 $b 88 $c - $d 196-207 $e 20231031 $i 1878-0539 $m Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery $n J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg $x MED00008968
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240412

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...