SynthesisFrontiers in ophthalmology2025
Periocular motor neurotization: a systematic review of techniques and outcomes in orbicularis oculi reinnervation.
Synthesis in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Periocular motor neurotization is a surgical approach that can be indicated for the restoration of dynamic eyelid function in patients with facial nerve palsy. The orbicularis oculi muscle, responsible for eyelid closure, can be the target of a variety of re-innervation techniques, such as direct nerve transfers and muscle transpositions. This systematic review aims to map the existing evidence on direct neurotization techniques of the OOM, including nerve grafting, nerve transfers, and contralateral muscle transposition, and to describe their published effectiveness. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and supplemental searching with citation chaining using google scholar to identify studies detailing periocular neurotization techniques. Studies were included if they reported clear outcomes such as restored blinking or eye closure, improved corneal protection, and enhanced eyelid symmetry. Results: Of 857 screened studies, 6 met inclusion criteria, comprising 4 cohort studies, 1 case series, and 1 case report, with 106 patients eligible for detailed extraction. Direct neurotization of the OOM was associated with improvements in eye closure, blink reflex, and electromyographic data. Motor donor nerve selection was noted to affect outcomes significantly, with contralateral facial nerve branches yielding the highest blink improvement. Conclusions: This review highlights the emerging role of direct neurotization techniques in reinnervating the orbicularis oculi muscle for appropriate patients with facial nerve palsy. Future high-quality studies are needed to establish clear indications, long-term efficacy, and comparative advantages of direct OOM neurotization in clinical practice.
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.