ArticleArchives of plastic surgery2026
Postoperative Outcomes of Masseteric Nerve Transposition versus Cross-Facial Nerve Graft in Facial Reanimation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Archives of plastic surgery, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Facial reanimation surgery offers various approaches, with the choice of method influenced by numerous factors. Masseteric nerve transposition (MNT) has become a preferred neural source, often compared with cross-face nerve graft (CFNG) for its respective advantages. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare postoperative outcomes between MNT and CFNG in facial reanimation surgery for patients with facial nerve paralysis sequelae. A comprehensive electronic search was conducted using databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, ScienceDirect, EBSCO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, along with gray literature sources like Scopus Preprints and MedRxiv. Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager version 5.4.1, with the quality of included studies assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results showed that MNT provided statistically significant improvements in commissural excursion (CE; mean difference [MD] = 2.36 mm) and commissural contraction velocity (CCV; MD = 7.01 mm/s) compared with CFNG. Additionally, MNT had a higher recovery percentage for CE (MD = 26.86%) and CCV (MD = 13.00%). Superior outcomes were also noted for static and dynamic smile symmetry, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. This meta-analysis underscores the advantages of MNT over CFNG in the majority of parameters in the analysis, at once highlighting the need for further research with larger sample sizes for more precise comparisons.
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.