ArticleThe Laryngoscope2013
Facial nerve repair: fibrin adhesive coaptation versus epineurial suture repair in a rodent model.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between VII-to-VII and XII-to-VII coaptation techniques for early facial nerve reanimation after surgical intra-cranial injuries: a systematic review and pooled analysis of the functional outcomes.Neurosurgical review · 2021Pooled it
- Maximizing Neurovascular Outcomes of Facial Transplantation: A Comprehensive Review.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Animal models used to study direct peripheral nerve repair: a systematic review.Neural regeneration research · 2020Article
- Toward the Bionic Face: A Novel Neuroprosthetic Device Paradigm for Facial Reanimation Consisting of Neural Blockade and Functional Electrical Stimulation.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2019Article
- The effects of venous ensheathment on facial nerve repair in the rat.The Laryngoscope · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectives/hypothesisRepair of the transected facial nerve has traditionally been accomplished with microsurgical neurorrhaphy; however, fibrin adhesive coaptation (FAC) of peripheral nerves has become increasingly popular over the past decade. We compared functional recovery following suture neurorrhaphy to FAC in a rodent facial nerve model. STUDY
designProspective, randomized animal study.
methodsSixteen rats underwent transection and repair of the facial nerve proximal to the pes anserinus. Eight animals underwent epineurial suture (ES) neurorrhaphy, and eight underwent repair with fibrin adhesive (FA). Surgical times were documented for all procedures. Whisking function was analyzed on a weekly basis for both groups across 15 weeks of recovery.
resultsRats experienced whisking recovery consistent in time course and degree with prior studies of rodent facial nerve transection and repair. There were no significant differences in whisking amplitude, velocity, or acceleration between suture and FA groups. However, the neurorrhaphy time with FA was 70% shorter than for ES (P < 0.05).
conclusionAlthough we found no difference in whisking recovery between suture and FA repair of the main trunk of the rat facial nerve, the significantly shorter operative time for FA repair makes this technique an attractive option. The relative advantages of both techniques are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.