SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2024
Facial nerve reconstruction for flaccid facial paralysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Emerging microsurgical techniques for facial nerve reconstruction in traumatic skull base fractures: a systematic review and comprehensive evidence analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Home-based Functional Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Patients with Facial Nerve Paralysis.Restorative neurology and neuroscience · 2026Article
- Revaluation of the tongue function of the modified hypoglossal-to-facial transfer: a comparative cohort study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
- Immediate Facial Reanimation After Radical Parotidectomy for Malignancy: Oncologic Principles and Reconstructive Strategy.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Review
- Trends in Facial Reanimation Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Adipose-derived stem cells in fat grafting for facial paralysis: A review of their therapeutic modality.JPRAS open · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the functional outcome after facial nerve reconstruction surgery in patients with flaccid facial paralysis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on studies reporting outcomes after direct facial nerve suture (DFS), facial nerve interpositional graft suture (FIGS), hypoglossal-facial nerve suture (HFS), masseteric-facial nerve suture (MFS), and cross-face nerve suture (CFS). These studies were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Two independent reviewers performed two-stage screening and data extraction. A favorable result was defined as a final House-Brackmann grade I-III and is presented as a ratio of all patients in percentage. Pooled proportions were calculated using random-effects models. Results: From 4,932 screened records, 54 studies with 1,358 patients were included. A favorable result was achieved after DFS in 42.67% of the patients [confidence interval (CI): 26.05%-61.12%], after FIGS in 66.43% (CI: 55.99%-75.47%), after HFS in 63.89% (95% CI: 54.83%-72.05%), after MFS in 63.11% (CI: 38.53%-82.37%), and after CFS in 46.67% (CI: 24.09%-70.70%). There was no statistically significant difference between the techniques (Q = 6.56, degrees of freedom = 4, Conclusions: The established facial nerve reconstruction techniques including the single nerve cross-transfer techniques produce satisfactory results in most of the patients with permanent flaccid facial paralysis. An international consensus on standardized outcome measures would improve the comparability of facial reanimation techniques.
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.