Unbound MEDLINE

Cross-face nerve graft with free-muscle transfer for reanimation of the paralyzed face: a comparative study of the single-stage and two-stage procedures. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. [Plast Reconstr Surg] Journal article

 
TitleCross-face nerve graft with free-muscle transfer for reanimation of the paralyzed face: a comparative study of the single-stage and two-stage procedures.
Author(s)Kumar PA, Hassan KM 
InstitutionMerseyside Regional Plastic Surgery Centre, Whiston Hospital, Prescot, Liverpool, UK. vinodkumar@email.msm.com
SourcePlast Reconstr Surg 2002 Feb; 109(2):451-62; discussion 463-4.
MeSHAdolescent
Adult
Child
Comparative Study
Facial Expression
Facial Nerve
Facial Paralysis
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Muscle, Skeletal
Patient Satisfaction
Postoperative Complications
Reconstructive Surgical Procedures
Reoperation
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Sural Nerve
Thigh
AbstractThe most accepted method for reanimation of the paralyzed face is the two-stage method that combines cross-face nerve graft with free-muscle transfer. Although the results of reconstruction with this method are satisfactory, there is an excessive delay between stages, which prolongs the period of rehabilitation. In 1995, Kumar overcame this and presented his preliminary results from a single-stage transfer of the gracilis. We compared the long-term results of the single-stage with the two-stage method of reconstruction. Patients selected the method of reconstruction on the basis of the information, photographs of scars, and video recording of results given to them at a special facial palsy clinic. Ten patients selected the single-stage reconstruction and 15 selected the two-stage reconstruction. The mean follow-up period was 3 years. The results of the two methods are comparable, with 90 percent of the patients who underwent the single-stage and 93 percent of those who underwent the two-stage procedures having good and fair results. However, the two-stage method scored good symmetry at rest in 67 percent, compared with 20 percent for the single-stage method. There were fewer complications with the single-stage method, and none of the patients had any problems relating to the donor site. The period of rehabilitation was reduced by 10 months with the single-stage method.
Languageeng
Pub Type(s)Journal Article
PubMed ID11818819
  
Advertise on this site.