ReviewJPRAS open2025
Single versus dual innervation in facial palsy reanimation with free functional muscle transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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.
- Immediate Facial Reanimation After Radical Parotidectomy for Malignancy: Oncologic Principles and Reconstructive Strategy.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 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: Free functional muscle transfers (FFMTs) have emerged as the gold standard for reanimation of chronic facial palsy. However, the various options for neuronal input to power the transferred muscle remain an issue of debate, especially the question whether a single or two different nerves are used. The purpose of this study was to review the available clinical data on single versus dual innervation in FFMTs and compare their outcomes to better understand if dual innervation offers a significant benefit. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Cochrane, EMBASE and PubMed MEDLINE database were searched following PRISMA guidelines 2020. All publications providing original clinical outcome data on dual nerve innervation of FFMTs in human patients were included. Results: The initial search yielded 451 studies of which 16 met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis and 4 for quantitative meta-analysis. A total of 98 patients were analysed, with 53 (51.94 %) women, mean age of 44.5 years in the single-innervation group and 41.2 years in the dual-innervation group, and an average follow-up period of 15 months. Both groups individually showed significant improvements (single innervation 41.1 %, Conclusion: Both methods show meaningful improvements post-treatment. The dual innervation patients tended to have longer palsy durations and slightly better but more varied post-treatment improvements with overall no statistically significant difference to the single innervation group.
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.