Restoring the spontaneous smile through free functional muscle transfer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the last twenty years' experience.

BACKGROUND: The recovery of the spontaneous smile has become a primary focus in facial reanimation surgery and its major determinant is the selected neurotizer. We aimed to compare the spontaneity outcomes of the most preferred neurotization methods in free functional muscle transfer for long-standing facial paralysis. METHODS: The Embase, Ovid Medline, and PubMed databases were queried with 21 keywords. All clinical studies from the last 20 years reporting the postoperative spontaneity rate for specified neurotization strategies [cross-face nerve graft (CFNG), contralateral facial nerve (CLFN), motor nerve to the masseter (MNM), and dual innervation (DI)] were included. A meta-analysis of prevalence was performed using Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation, I2 statistic, and generic inverse variance with a random-effects model. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess bias and study quality. RESULTS: The literature search produced 2613 results and 473 unique citations for facial reanimation. Twenty-nine studies including 2046 patients were included in the systematic review. A meta-analysis of eligible data (1952 observations from 23 studies) showed statistically significant differences between the groups (CFNG: 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.00, CLFN: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00, MNM: 0.26; 95% CI, 0.05-0.54, DI: 0.98; 95% CI, 0.90-1.00, P < 0.001). In pairwise comparisons, statistically significant differences were found between MNM and other neurotization strategies (P < 0.001 in CFNG compared with MNM, P = 0.013 for CLFN compared with MNM, P < 0.001 for DI compared with MNM). CONCLUSIONS: DI- and CLFN-driven strategies achieved the most promising outcomes, whereas MNM showed the potential to elicit spontaneous smile at a lower extent. Our meta-analysis was limited primarily by incongruency between spontaneity assessment systems. Consensus on a standardized tool would enable more effective comparisons of the outcomes.

Color Doppler ultrasound versus CT angiography for DIEP flap planning: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Identifying relevant perforators is crucial in planning a deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. Color Doppler ultrasonography (CDU) has gained popularity for localizing perforators; however, current evidence on its efficiency is still inconclusive. This study aimed to compare the efficiency of CDU with that of computed tomography angiography (CTA) in localizing and selecting the relevant perforators. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 60 patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction (uni- or bilateral) were randomly assigned to the CDU group (i.e., CDU was performed to map and select the relevant perforators preoperatively) or the CTA+CDU group (i.e., mapping was based on CTA and supplemented by CDU). CDU was performed by the same surgeon with a well-defined sonography experience from our previous study. The reference XY coordinates of the dissected perforators were measured intraoperatively, and deviations from preoperatively deducted coordinates were calculated (ΔCDU or ΔCTA+CDU). The flaps were categorized according to the number of dissected perforators, and adherence to the preoperative strategy was evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 22 patients (30 flaps) in the CTA+CDU group and 27 (39 flaps) patients in the CDU group were evaluated. The average ΔCDU (0.6 cm) was significantly lower than the average ΔCTA+CDU (1.0 cm) (p < 0.001). Adherence to the mapping-based dissection strategy was higher in the CDU group; however, the difference was insignificant (p = 0.092). CONCLUSION: CDU is not inferior to CTA + CDU in localizing and selecting relevant DIEA perforators. Therefore, CDU mapping is a possible complementary or substitute modality for CTA mapping.

Donor nerve selection in free gracilis muscle transfer for facial reanimation. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: One of the critical factors in facial reanimation is selecting the donor nerve. The most favored neurotizers are the contralateral facial nerve with a cross-face nerve graft (CFNG) and motor nerve to the masseter (MNM). A relatively new dual innervation (DI) method has shown successful results. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of different neurotization strategies for free gracilis muscle transfer (FGMT). METHODS: The Scopus and WoS databases were queried with 21 keywords. Three-stage article selection was performed for the systematic review. Articles presenting quantitative data for commissure excursion and facial symmetry were included in meta-analysis, using random-effects model. ROBINS-I tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess bias and study quality. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven articles containing FGMT were systematically reviewed. Most studies indicated CFNG as the first choice. MNM was primarily indicated in bilateral palsy and in elderly. Clinical outcomes of DI studies were promising. 13 studies including 435 observations (179 CFNG, 182 MNM, 74 DI) were eligible for meta-analysis. The mean change in commissure excursion was 7.15 mm (95% CI: 4.57-9.72) for CFNG, 8.46 mm (95% CI: 6.86-10.06) for MNM, and 5.18 mm (95% CI: 4.01-6.34) for DI. In pairwise comparisons, a significant difference was found between MNM and DI (p = 0.0011), despite the superior outcomes described in DI studies. No statistically significant difference was found in resting and smile symmetry (p = 0.625, p = 0.780). CONCLUSIONS: CFNG is the most preferred neurotizer, and MNM is a reliable second option. Outcomes of DI studies are promising, but more comparison studies are needed to draw conclusions. Our meta-analysis was limited by incompatibility of the assessment scales. Consensus on a standardized assessment system would add value to future studies.