| Literature DB >> 35847576 |
Mohamed Elkahwagi1, Mohammed Abdelbadie Salem1, Waleed Moneir1, Hassan Allam1.
Abstract
Objective: The management of traumatic facial nerve paralysis (FNP) has remained a controversial issue with conflicting findings arguing between surgical decompression and conservative management. However, recent advances in endoscopic surgery may consolidate the management plan for this condition.Entities:
Keywords: Decompression; Electrodiagnostic; Endoscopic; Facial nerve; Posttraumatic; Transcanal
Year: 2022 PMID: 35847576 PMCID: PMC9270561 DOI: 10.1016/j.joto.2022.03.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Otol ISSN: 1672-2930
Fig. 1A. Endoscopic view of the left ear showing a fracture line crossing the second genu of facial nerve. S. indicates stapes head. The arrow refers to the fracture line B. Removal of bone fragments compressing the second genu, notice the fracture line in the EAC. The arrow refers to the fracture line. C. View after decompression of the tympanic segment and 2nd genu. The arrow refers to the tympanic segment.
Fig. 2A. Endoscopic view of the right ear after incus removal and nibbling of malleus head showing bone fragment and hematoma compressing the GG. The arrow refers to the hematoma. B: Decompression of the GG, M. refers to the malleus. The arrow refers to the stapes head.
Fig. 3A. Endoscopic view of right ear showing incus replacement in its original position with bone cement stabilization B. Endoscopic view of right ear showing incus refashioning between the malleus and stapes. I. indicates the refashioned incus. C refers to cartilage reconstruction of attic that will be lateralized lateral to the ossicular reconstruction.
Demographic data and comparison between the surgical and conservation groups, N. number.
| Surgical group N = 15 | Conservation group N = 23 | Test of significance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age/years (mean ± SD) | 27.13 ± 14.15 | 27.87 ± 11.76 | p = 0.863 |
| Sex N (%) | |||
| Male | 12(80.0%) | 16(69.6%) | p = 0.475 |
| Female | 3(20.0%) | 7(30.4%) | |
| Onset of palsy N (%) | |||
| Immediate | 11(73.3) | 11(47.8) | |
| Delayed | 4(26.7) | 12(52.2) | p = 0.120 |
| Cause N (%) | |||
| Fall | 3(20.0) | 6(26.1) | |
| RTA | 12(80.0) | 15(65.2) | p = 0.422 |
| Assault | 0 | 2(8.7) | |
| Type of fracture N(%) | |||
| No | 0 | 4(17.4) | |
| Longitudinal | 11(73.3) | 15(65.2) | p = 0.305 |
| Mixed | 2(13.3) | 3(13.0) | |
| Transverse | 2(13.3) | 1(4.3) | |
| Pre ABG (median& range) | 30(10–40) | 10(5–50) | P = 0.007∗ |
| Preop HB scale (median& range) | 6(5–6) | 4(3–5) | p < 0.001∗ |
Fig. 4A. Preoperative complete left facial palsyb. 6 months postoperative improvement. C. Pre-conservative approach complete right facial palsy. D. 6 months post-conservative approach improvement.
The outcome of the study showing the facial nerve function outcome and the hearing outcome.
| Surgical group N = 15 | Conservation group n = 23 | |
|---|---|---|
| Preop HB scale | 6(5–6) | 4(3–5) |
| 6months Postop HB scale | 2(1–3) | 1(1–3) |
| Wilcoxon signed rank test | P < 0.001∗ | P < 0.001∗ |
| Pre ABG | 30(10–40) | 10(5–50) |
| Post ABG | 20(10–25) | 10(5–10) |
| Wilcoxon signed rank test | P = 0.002∗ | P = 0.04∗ |