ArticleNeurosurgical review2022
Value of intraoperative monitoring of the trigeminal nerve in detection of a superiorly displaced facial nerve during surgery for large vestibular schwannomas.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Latency Variations on the Predictive Value of Facial Nerve Proximal-to-Distal Amplitude Ratio during Vestibular Schwannoma Surgery.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the role of trigeminal and facial nerve monitoring in the early identification of a superiorly (anterior and superior (AS)) displaced facial nerve. This prospective study included 24 patients operated for removal of large vestibular schwannomas (VS). The latencies of the electromyographic (EMG) events recorded from the trigeminal and facial nerve innervated muscles after mapping the superior surface of the tumor were analyzed. The mean latency of the recorded compound muscle action potential (CMAP) from the masseter muscle was 3.6 ± 0.5 ms and of the peripherally transmitted responses by volume conduction from the frontalis, o. oculi, nasalis, o. oris, and mentalis muscles was 4.6 ± 0.9, 4.1 ± 0.7, 3.9 ± 0.4, 4.3 ± 0.8, and 4.5 ± 0.6 ms, respectively, after trigeminal nerve stimulation in 24 (100%) patients (pattern I response). In 6 (25%) patients, the mean latency of CMAP on the masseter was 3.3 ± 0.3 ms, and the latencies of the CMAP from the frontalis, o. oculi, nasalis, o. oris, and mentalis muscles were 6.5 ± 1.3, 5.0 ± 1.5, 7.5 ± 1.3, 7.4 ± 0.6, and 7.0 ± 1.5 ms, respectively, longer than those of the peripherally transmitted responses (p = 0.002, p = 0.001, p < 0.001, and p = 0.015, respectively) indicating simultaneous stimulation of both nerves (pattern II response). All patients with this response were later confirmed to have an AS-displaced facial nerve. Recognizing the response resulting from simultaneous stimulation of both the facial and trigeminal nerves is important to help early identification of an AS-displaced facial nerve before it is visible in the surgical field and to avoid misleading information by confusing this pattern for a pure trigeminal nerve response.
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.