Masseteric Nerve Transfer for Facial Nerve Paralysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

A review of the role of masseteric nerve transfer is needed to guide its use in facial reanimation.

Objective

To systematically review the available literature, and, when applicable, analyze the combined outcomes of masseteric nerve transfer to better define its role in reanimation and to guide further research.

Data Sources

Two independent researchers conducted the review using PubMed-NCBI and Scopus literature databases for studies on masseteric nerve transfer for facial nerve paralysis.

Study Selection

Studies that examined masseter nerve transfer with additional cranial nerve transposition/coaptation or muscle flap were excluded.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Literature review and data extraction followed established PRISMA guidelines. Two researchers extracted data independently.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main planned outcomes for the study were quantitative results of facial nerve movement after nerve transfer including oral commissure movement and time to nerve recovery.

Results

A total of 13 articles met inclusion criteria with a total of 183 patients undergoing masseteric nerve transfer. From those studies, there were a total of 183 patients who underwent masseteric nerve transfer. There were 85 men and 98 women with a mean (SD) age of 43 (12.2) years and mean (SD) follow up examination after surgery of 22 (7.6) months. Mean (SD) duration of nerve paralysis was 14 (6) months. Most common cause of paralysis was cerebellopontine angle tumors (81%). Six studies coapted the masseteric nerve to the main facial nerve trunk, whereas 7 used distal branches (buccal or zygomatic). Four studies used interposition nerve grafts with great auricular nerve. Two measures, improvement in oral commissure excursion and length from reanimation to facial movement, were measured consistently across the studies. Pooled analysis showed time from surgery to first facial movement, described in 10 studies, to be 4.95 months (95% CI, 3.66 to 6.24). Distal branch coaptation improved time to recovery vs main branch coaptation, 3.76 vs 5.76 months (95% CI, -0.33 to 4.32), but mean difference was not significant. The use of interposition graft significantly delayed time of nerve recovery, 6.24 vs 4.06 months (95% CI, 0.20 to 4.16). When controlled for main trunk coaptation only, interposition nerve graft delayed recovery but difference was no longer statistically significant, 6.24 vs 4.75 months (95% CI, -0.94 to 3.92). Reported complications were minor and rare occurring in only 6.5% (12 of 183) of patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

The masseteric nerve was found to be a good option for nerve transfer in this patient population, and showed favorable results in both time to nerve recovery and improvement in oral commissure excursion.

Level of Evidence

NA.

Factors associated with benefit of active middle ear implants compared to conventional hearing aids

OBJECTIVE

Identify factors associated with benefit of middle ear implants (MEIs) as compared to conventional hearing aids (HAs).

STUDY DESIGN

Independent review of audiological data from a multicenter prospective U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clinical trial. Preoperative and postoperative earphone, unaided/aided/implanted pure-tone thresholds, and word recognition scores were evaluated.

RESULTS

Ninety-one subjects were included in this study. Mean word recognition was better with MEIs than with HAs (81.8% ± 12.0% vs. 77.6% ± 14.6%, P = 0.035). Word recognition with MEIs showed a low positive correlation with word recognition measured with earphones (r = 0.25, P = 0.016) and a moderate positive correlation with aided word recognition (r = 0.42, P < 0.001). Earphone word recognition alone was not predictive of MEI benefit over HA benefit (r = 0.09, P = 0.41), unlike differences between scores with earphone and HAs (earphone-aided differences [EAD]) (r = 0.62, P < 0.011). As compared to those with -EADs, subjects with +EADs showed greater improvement in word recognition from unaided to implanted and from HAs to implanted (P < 0.0001). Using the 95% CI for word recognition scores, 16 subjects showed significantly higher scores with the MEI than with HAs. Of those, 14 had +EAD.

CONCLUSION

Word recognition benefit derived from conventional HAs and MEIs from this large, multi-center FDA trial provides further evidence of the importance of aided word recognition in clinical decision making, such as determining candidacy for and success with MEIs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2b. Laryngoscope, 128:2133-2138, 2018.

Nonsurgical management of human immunodeficiency virus-associated parotid cysts: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this clinical review was to analyze the effectiveness of nonsurgical management options for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated parotid cysts.

METHODS

We conducted systematic and meta-analysis reviews. Primary outcomes were complete or partial responses.

RESULTS

Systematic review identified 12 relevant studies. The average rates of complete response for antiretroviral therapy (ART), sclerotherapy, and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) were 52.8%, 55.5%, and 33.3%, respectively. Three radiotherapy studies, totaling 104 patients, were included in a meta-analysis. Patients receiving high-dose therapy achieved complete and partial response rates of 65.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 54.3%-76.2%) and 25.2% (95% CI 16.1%-36.3%), respectively. Patients receiving low-dose therapy achieved complete and partial response rates of 23.2% (95% CI 1.2%-60.9%) and 22.3% (95% CI 5.2%-87.8%), respectively. The rate of complete response was significantly greater for high-dose radiotherapy compared to low-dose (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Among nonsurgical treatment modalities for HIV-associated parotid cysts, radiotherapy has the highest number of reported outcomes in the literature and our analysis suggests that higher dose radiotherapy has higher rates of achieving complete response.

Impact of resident involvement in outpatient otolaryngology procedures: An analysis of 17,647 cases

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the impact of resident physician participation on postoperative outcomes in outpatient otolaryngologic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for outpatient otolaryngologic procedures performed on adult patients. Cases were analyzed with the following cohorts: attending with resident or attending without resident. Outcomes included complications, readmission, reoperation, and operative time.

RESULTS

A total of 17,647 cases were analyzed, with 13,123 patients in the attending without resident cohort and 4,524 patients in the attending with resident cohort. The majority of patients were female (58.7%) and white (88.0%). The average age was 44 (range 16-89) years, and average body mass index was 29.0 ± 7.3 kg/m² . Total relative value units were higher in the attending with resident group 14.6 ± 12.0 compared with 10.2 ± 8.3 in the attending without resident group (P < 0.01). Univariate analysis revealed that resident participation increased complication rate (2.0% vs. 1.4%, P < 0.01) and operative time (108 ± 98 minutes vs. 60 ± 55 minutes, P < 0.01). There were no differences in readmissions (P = 0.35), reoperations (P > 0.05), or death rates (P = 0.32) between groups. Multivariate regression analysis, however, revealed that resident participation did not increase the rate of any complication, and that operative time was the only significantly impacted variable (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Resident surgical training remains a vital component of the current health care system. Previous research has shown that, despite increased operative time, resident participation does not significantly impact complication rates for otolaryngology procedures. This study confirms these findings in the outpatient setting, thus reassuring both the surgeon and patients that resident participation does not impact procedural safety.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 127:2026-2032, 2017.

Clinical Implications of Word Recognition Differences in Earphone and Aided Conditions

OBJECTIVE

To compare word recognition scores for adults with hearing loss measured using earphones and in the sound field without and with hearing aids (HA).

STUDY DESIGN

Independent review of presurgical audiological data from an active middle ear implant (MEI) FDA clinical trial.

SETTING

Multicenter prospective FDA clinical trial.

PATIENTS

Ninety-four adult HA users.

INTERVENTIONS/MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURED

Preoperative earphone, aided word recognition scores, and speech intelligibility index.

RESULTS

We performed an independent review of presurgical audiological data from an MEI FDA trial and compared unaided and aided word recognition scores with participants' HAs fit according to the NAL-R algorithm. For 52 participants (55.3%), differences in scores between earphone and aided conditions were >10%; for 33 participants (35.1%), earphone scores were higher by 10% or more than aided scores. These participants had significantly higher pure-tone thresholds at 250, 500, and 1000 Hz, higher pure-tone averages, higher speech recognition thresholds (and higher earphone speech levels [p = 0.002]). No significant correlation was observed between word recognition scores measured with earphones and with hearing aids (r = 0.14; p = 0.16), whereas a moderately high positive correlation was observed between unaided and aided word recognition (r = 0.68; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results of these analyses do not support the common clinical practice of using word recognition scores measured with earphones to predict aided word recognition or hearing aid benefit. Rather, these results provide evidence supporting the measurement of aided word recognition in patients who are considering hearing aids.