ArticleJPRAS open2025
Exploring the relationship between the level of facial nerve injury and surgical outcome: Application of a new anatomical classification system in a limited cohort undergoing marginal mandibular nerve reconstruction.
Article in JPRAS open, 2025. 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.
- Peripheral facial palsy: contemporary advances and unresolved debates in management from pathogenic mechanisms to tailored reconstruction.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Reconstruction of the marginal mandibular nerve (MMN) is important for achieving optimal outcomes in the treatment of facial paralysis. However, the heterogeneity of injuries, ranging from extensive proximal facial nerve injuries to isolated distal MMN injuries, complicates meaningful outcome comparisons. This study assessed a new anatomical classification system for stratifying facial nerve injuries by injury location. The aim was to study MMN outcomes in proximal versus distal injuries and determine whether this system could provide a more reliable way to compare surgical results. Methods: A retrospective, single-center study of MMN reconstructions (either independent MMN reconstructions or as part of a broader facial nerve reconstruction) was conducted over a 12-year period. Clinical outcomes were assessed using a classification system for facial nerve injuries (Levels 1-3, based on facial nerve injury location: Level 1 = proximal, Level 2 = parotid area, Level 3 = distal). Outcome measures included the Terzis' Lower Lip Grading Scale, photogrammetry, Sunnybrook, and quality-of-life assessments (Facial Disability Index, Facial Clinimetric Evaluation Scale). Results: Sixteen patients (7 female; mean age 46.5 ± 20.6 years) underwent MMN reconstruction. Across all outcome measures, distal Level 3 injuries yielded the best outcomes, followed by Level 2, with proximal Level 1 injuries showing the least favourable results. Conclusions: Proximal facial nerve injuries demonstrated inferior MMN outcomes compared with distal injuries, highlighting the importance of considering injury location when comparing results. The proposed classification system may provide a practical method for grouping patients according to anatomical injury location, enabling more meaningful and standardized comparisons of surgical outcomes among patients with similar characteristics and treatment protocols.
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.