ReviewPlastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.)2026
Artificial Intelligence in the Management of Facial Palsy: A Narrative Review Across the Care Continuum.
Review in Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.), 2026. 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
Introduction: Facial paralysis produces substantial functional and psychosocial impairment which facial reanimation surgery seeks to mitigate by restoring facial movement and improving symmetry. However, despite technical advances in nerve- and muscle-based reconstruction, perioperative evaluation and outcome assessment remain largely subjective and variably reproducible. Artificial intelligence (AI) and computer vision have emerged as tools to provide objective, scalable assessment across the facial reanimation care pathway. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched extensively to identify studies evaluating AI applications relevant to facial reanimation surgery. Included studies were screened by three independent reviewers and mapped to stages of perioperative care using an evidence-mapping framework. Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and were distributed across multiple stages of care. Evidence was most concentrated in diagnosis and severity assessment and in postoperative follow-up, where AI systems automated facial grading scales, quantified asymmetry, and extracted dynamic motion features from photographs and video. Several machine learning and deep learning models demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy and strong correlations with clinician-assigned scores, often exceeding inter-rater reliability of traditional grading systems. Fewer studies addressed prognostic modeling, preoperative planning, or rehabilitation, though emerging applications included outcome prediction, three-dimensional symmetry analysis, and AI-assisted evaluation of spontaneous emotional expression after reanimation. Conclusion: AI applications in facial paralysis care are most mature in assessment and outcome measurement, where they offer improved objectivity and reproducibility. However, broader clinical integration will require larger, diverse datasets, prospective validation, and alignment with ethical and regulatory standards to demonstrate meaningful patient centered benefit.
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.