Literature DB >> 31204152

Effectiveness and safety of the use of gracilis muscle for dynamic smile restoration in facial paralysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mélissa Roy1, Joseph P Corkum2, Prakesh S Shah3, Gregory H Borschel4, Emily S Ho4, Ronald M Zuker5, Kristen M Davidge6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Smiling is a fundamental component of social interactions. Significant challenges arise for patients with facial palsy. One of the key procedures for dynamic smile restoration is the microneurovascular transfer of a gracilis muscle. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of dynamic smile reanimation surgery using the free gracilis muscle unit in patients with facial palsy.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting surgical outcomes of dynamic smile restoration using free gracilis muscles identified from EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science databases from their inception to March 15, 2018. Two-stage screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled proportions were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Thirty-one studies including 1647 patients who underwent 1739 free gracilis flaps were included. Twelve (38.7%) studies measured perioperative smile excursion change using six different tools. Six of these studies were homogeneous and were used in meta-analyses of smile excursion improvement, which revealed a mean change of 7.5 mm (95% CI 6.0-9.0 mm, I2 86.7%) perioperatively. Twenty (64.5%) studies reported perioperative complications, and pooled proportions of flap failures were of 2.9% (95% CI 1.3-4.5%, I2 47.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic smile restoration using a free gracilis muscle may represent an effective procedure to regain oral commissure motion and is associated with an approximately 3% rate of flap failure. Masseteric nerve coaptations lead to larger improvements in perioperative smile excursion (10 mm) than cross-facial nerve grafts (6.8 mm). Future studies with homogeneous reporting of smile excursion and patient-reported outcome measures are needed. Crown
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cross-facial nerve graft; Facial palsy; Facial paralysis; Facial reanimation; Gracilis muscle; Motor nerve to masseter

Year:  2019        PMID: 31204152     DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2019.05.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg        ISSN: 1748-6815            Impact factor:   2.740


  5 in total

Review 1.  A Comprehensive Approach to Facial Reanimation: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Milosz Pinkiewicz; Karolina Dorobisz; Tomasz Zatoński
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-20       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Masseter nerve-based facial palsy reconstruction.

Authors:  Hojin Park; Seong Su Jeong; Tae Suk Oh
Journal:  Arch Craniofac Surg       Date:  2020-12-20

3.  A case report of upper limb loss of substance: Use of functional gracilis free flap, brachioradialis transposition and bioglass for bone regeneration.

Authors:  Pasquale Gravina; Francesco De Francesco; Pier Paolo Pangrazi; Andrea Marchesini; Alexander D Neuendorf; Andrea Campodonico; Antonio Gigante; Michele Riccio
Journal:  Trauma Case Rep       Date:  2022-01-31

4.  Facial Nerve Repair following Acute Nerve Injury.

Authors:  Ehud Fliss; Ravit Yanko; Arik Zaretski; Roei Tulchinsky; Ehud Arad; Daniel J Kedar; Dan M Fliss; Eyal Gur
Journal:  Arch Plast Surg       Date:  2022-07-30

5.  Acute Peripheral Facial Palsy: Recent Guidelines and a Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Su Jin Kim; Ho Yun Lee
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 2.153

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.