Joseph R Dusseldorp1,2, Martinus M van Veen1,3, Diego L Guarin1, Olivia Quatela1, Nate Jowett1, Tessa A Hadlock1. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Harvard Medical School, Boston. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Plastic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, and University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Surgeons have sought to optimize outcomes of smile reanimation surgery by combining inputs from nerve-to-masseter and cross-face nerve grafts. An objective assessment tool could help surgeons evaluate outcomes to determine the optimal neural sources for smile reanimation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a novel video time-stamping method and standard outcome measurement tools to assess outcomes of facial reanimation surgery using various innervation strategies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study assessing the outcomes of dually innervated gracilis free muscle transfers vs single-source innervated gracilis transfer performed at a tertiary care facial nerve center between 2007 and 2017 using a novel, video time-stamping spontaneity assessment method. The statistical analyses were performed in 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Dually innervated gracilis free muscle transfers or single-source innervated gracilis transfer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Spontaneous smiling was assessed by clinicians and quantified using blinded time-stamped video recordings of smiling elicited while viewing humorous video clips. RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included 25 patients (12 men and 13 women; median [range] age, 38.4 [29.3-46.0] years) treated with dually innervated gracilis free functional muscle graft for unilateral facial palsy between 2007 and 2017. Smile spontaneity assessment was performed in 17 patients and was compared with assessment performed in 24 patients treated with single-source innervated gracilis transfer (ie, nerve-to-masseter-driven or cross-face nerve graft-driven gracilis [n = 13]) (demographic data not available for NTM and CFNG cohorts). The use of time-stamped video assessment revealed that spontaneous synchronous oral commissure movement in a median percentage of smiles was 33% in patients with dually innervated gracilis (interquartile range [IQR], 0%-71%), 20% of smiles in patients with nerve-to-masseter-driven gracilis (IQR, 0%-50%), and 75% of smiles in patients with cross-face nerve graft-driven gracilis (IQR, 0%-100%). Clinicians graded smile spontaneity in dually innervated cases as absent in 40% (n = 6 of 15), trace in 33% (n = 5 of 15) and present in 27% (n = 4 of 15). No association was demonstrated between clinician-reported spontaneity and objectively measured synchronicity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Dually innervated gracilis free muscle transfers may improve smile spontaneity compared with masseteric nerve-driven transfers but not to the level of cross-face nerve graft-driven gracilis transfers. Quantifying spontaneity is notoriously difficult, and most authors rely on clinical assessment. Our results suggest that clinicians may rate presence of spontaneity higher than objective measures, highlighting the importance of standardized assessment techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
IMPORTANCE: Surgeons have sought to optimize outcomes of smile reanimation surgery by combining inputs from nerve-to-masseter and cross-face nerve grafts. An objective assessment tool could help surgeons evaluate outcomes to determine the optimal neural sources for smile reanimation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a novel video time-stamping method and standard outcome measurement tools to assess outcomes of facial reanimation surgery using various innervation strategies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study assessing the outcomes of dually innervated gracilis free muscle transfers vs single-source innervated gracilis transfer performed at a tertiary care facial nerve center between 2007 and 2017 using a novel, video time-stamping spontaneity assessment method. The statistical analyses were performed in 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Dually innervated gracilis free muscle transfers or single-source innervated gracilis transfer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Spontaneous smiling was assessed by clinicians and quantified using blinded time-stamped video recordings of smiling elicited while viewing humorous video clips. RESULTS: This retrospective cohort study included 25 patients (12 men and 13 women; median [range] age, 38.4 [29.3-46.0] years) treated with dually innervated gracilis free functional muscle graft for unilateral facial palsy between 2007 and 2017. Smile spontaneity assessment was performed in 17 patients and was compared with assessment performed in 24 patients treated with single-source innervated gracilis transfer (ie, nerve-to-masseter-driven or cross-face nerve graft-driven gracilis [n = 13]) (demographic data not available for NTM and CFNG cohorts). The use of time-stamped video assessment revealed that spontaneous synchronous oral commissure movement in a median percentage of smiles was 33% in patients with dually innervated gracilis (interquartile range [IQR], 0%-71%), 20% of smiles in patients with nerve-to-masseter-driven gracilis (IQR, 0%-50%), and 75% of smiles in patients with cross-face nerve graft-driven gracilis (IQR, 0%-100%). Clinicians graded smile spontaneity in dually innervated cases as absent in 40% (n = 6 of 15), trace in 33% (n = 5 of 15) and present in 27% (n = 4 of 15). No association was demonstrated between clinician-reported spontaneity and objectively measured synchronicity. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Dually innervated gracilis free muscle transfers may improve smile spontaneity compared with masseteric nerve-driven transfers but not to the level of cross-face nerve graft-driven gracilis transfers. Quantifying spontaneity is notoriously difficult, and most authors rely on clinical assessment. Our results suggest that clinicians may rate presence of spontaneity higher than objective measures, highlighting the importance of standardized assessment techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.
Authors: F Biglioli; V Colombo; F Tarabbia; M Pedrazzoli; V Battista; F Giovanditto; E Dalla Toffola; A Lozza; A Frigerio Journal: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Prabhat K Bhama; Julie S Weinberg; Robin W Lindsay; Marc H Hohman; Mack L Cheney; Tessa A Hadlock Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.611