ArticleLaryngoscope investigative otolaryngology2020
Facial nerve repair utilizing intraoperative repair strategies.
Article in Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Electrical Stimulation on Facial Paralysis Recovery after Facial Nerve Injury: A Review on Preclinical and Clinical Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Facial nerve repair utilizing intraoperative repair strategies.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether functional and anatomical outcomes following suture neurorrhaphy are improved by the addition of electrical stimulation with or without the addition of polyethylene glycol (PEG).
methodsIn a rat model of facial nerve injury, complete facial nerve transection and repair was performed via (a) suture neurorrhaphy alone, (b) neurorrhaphy with the addition of brief (30 minutes) intraoperative electrical stimulation, or (c) neurorrhaphy with the addition electrical stimulation and PEG. Functional recovery was assessed weekly for 16 weeks. At 16 weeks postoperatively, motoneuron survival, amount of regrowth, and specificity of regrowth were assessed by branch labeling and tissue analysis.
resultsThe addition of brief intraoperative electrical stimulation improved all functional outcomes compared to suturing alone. The addition of PEG to electrical stimulation impaired this benefit. Motoneuron survival, amount of regrowth, and specificity of regrowth were unaltered at 16 weeks postoperative in all treatment groups.
conclusionThe addition of brief intraoperative electrical stimulation to neurorrhaphy in this rodent model shows promising neurological benefit in the surgical repair of facial nerve injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Animal study.
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.