Literature DB >> 20131366

Outcomes of static and dynamic facial nerve repair in head and neck cancer.

Tim A Iseli1, Gregory Harris, Nichole R Dean, Claire E Iseli, Eben L Rosenthal.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Determine outcomes associated with nerve grafting versus static repair following facial nerve resection. STUDY
DESIGN: Retrospective chart review.
METHODS: Charts from 105 patients who underwent facial nerve reconstruction between January 1999 and January 2009 were reviewed. The majority had parotid malignancy (78.1%), most commonly squamous cell carcinoma (50.5%). Patients underwent static (n = 72) or dynamic (n = 33) reconstruction with nerve grafting. Facial nerve function was measured using the House-Brackmann (H-B) scale.
RESULTS: Patients receiving static reconstruction were on average 10.3 years older (P = .002). Mean overall survival for tumor cases was 61.9 months; parotid squamous cell carcinoma was associated with worse prognosis (P = .10). Median follow-up was 16.1 months (range, 4-96.1 months). Most (97%) patients receiving a nerve graft had some return of function at a median of 6.2 months postoperatively (range, 4-9 months) and the majority (63.6%) had good function (H-B score <or=4). Patients having static reconstruction (29.2%) were more likely to have symptomatic facial palsy than those having a nerve graft (15.2%, P = .12).
CONCLUSIONS: Where possible, nerve grafting is the preferred method of facial nerve reconstruction. Although elderly patients with parotid malignancy have traditionally been considered poor candidates for nerve grafting, we demonstrate good results within 9 months of facial nerve repair even with radiotherapy, the use of long grafts (>6 cm), and prolonged preoperative dysfunction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20131366     DOI: 10.1002/lary.20789

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Laryngoscope        ISSN: 0023-852X            Impact factor:   3.325


  7 in total

1.  Outcomes following temporal bone resection.

Authors:  Nichole R Dean; Hilliary N White; Dale S Carter; Renee A Desmond; William R Carroll; Benjamin M McGrew; Eben L Rosenthal
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.325

2.  Electrophysiological assessment of a peptide amphiphile nanofiber nerve graft for facial nerve repair.

Authors:  Jacqueline J Greene; Mark T McClendon; Nicholas Stephanopoulos; Zaida Álvarez; Samuel I Stupp; Claus-Peter Richter
Journal:  J Tissue Eng Regen Med       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 3.963

3.  Modern concepts in facial nerve reconstruction.

Authors:  Gerd F Volk; Mira Pantel; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2010-11-01       Impact factor: 2.151

4.  Lower lip suspension with gore-tex suture: technique and literature review.

Authors:  John Paul Tutela; Jared Davis; Matthew Zeiderman; Sharooz Sean Kelishadi; Bradon Wilhelmi
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2014-10-08

5.  Fluorescently labeled peptide increases identification of degenerated facial nerve branches during surgery and improves functional outcome.

Authors:  Timon Hussain; Melina B Mastrodimos; Sharat C Raju; Heather L Glasgow; Michael Whitney; Beth Friedman; Jeffrey D Moore; David Kleinfeld; Paul Steinbach; Karen Messer; Minya Pu; Roger Y Tsien; Quyen T Nguyen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Facial nerve reconstruction following radical parotidectomy and subtotal petrosectomy for advanced malignant parotid neoplasms.

Authors:  Rocío Sánchez-Burgos; Teresa Gonzalez Otero; Luis Lassaletta; Javier Arias Gallo; Ignacio Navarro Cuellar; Miguel Burgueño García
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2015 Jul-Dec

7.  Selective Surface Electrostimulation of the Denervated Zygomaticus Muscle.

Authors:  Dirk Arnold; Jovanna Thielker; Carsten M Klingner; Wiebke Caren Puls; Wengelawit Misikire; Orlando Guntinas-Lichius; Gerd Fabian Volk
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-28
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.