Neurotization Preferences in Smile Reanimation: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Common donor nerve options in smile reanimation include ipsilateral trigeminal motor or contralateral facial nerve branches. Neurotization preference may be influenced by multiple factors, whose relative importance remains poorly understood. In this article, decision-making in smile reanimation is assessed using a stated preference model. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with facial palsy patients identified five relevant attributes for study: smile type ("smile when biting" versus "smile spontaneously" as proxies for trigeminal versus cross-facial neurotization), number of operations, success rates, complication rates, and side effects. Community volunteers (n = 250) completed a discrete-choice experiment relevant to free muscle transfer for smile reanimation. Preoperative and postoperative states were demonstrated through video vignettes, together with explanation of surgical risks, consequences, and benefits. Attribute importance was modeled using hierarchical Bayes estimation. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one responses met quality controls. Attribute importance ranked as follows: chance of success, 37.3 percent; smile type, 21.4 percent; side effects, 13.9 percent; complication rates, 13.8; and number of operations, 13.6 percent. All attributes significantly correlated with decision making (p < 0.0001). An aggregate response model revealed most participants (67.6 percent; standard error, 3.0 percent) preferred smile reanimation by cross-facial (assuming a success rate of 80 percent) as opposed to ipsilateral trigeminal motor branch neurotization. When the success rate for cross-facial neurotization was reduced below 67 percent, trigeminal neurotization was preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher risk of failure, most respondents preferred a cross-facial as opposed to trigeminal neurotization strategy for smile reanimation. These findings highlight the complexity of decision-making and need for individualized risk tolerance assessment in the field of facial reanimation.

Testing the effectiveness and the contribution of experimental supercharge (reversed) end-to-side nerve transfer.

OBJECTIVE: Supercharge end-to-side (SETS) transfer, also referred to as reverse end-to-side transfer, distal to severe nerve compression neuropathy or in-continuity nerve injury is gaining clinical popularity despite questions about its effectiveness. Here, the authors examined SETS distal to experimental neuroma in-continuity (NIC) injuries for efficacy in enhancing neuronal regeneration and functional outcome, and, for the first time, they definitively evaluated the degree of contribution of the native and donor motor neuron pools. METHODS: This study was conducted in 2 phases. In phase I, rats (n = 35) were assigned to one of 5 groups for unilateral sciatic nerve surgeries: group 1, tibial NIC with distal peroneal-tibial SETS; group 2, tibial NIC without SETS; group 3, intact tibial and severed peroneal nerves; group 4, tibial transection with SETS; and group 5, severed tibial and peroneal nerves. Recovery was evaluated biweekly using electrophysiology and locomotion tasks. At the phase I end point, after retrograde labeling, the spinal cords were analyzed to assess the degree of neuronal regeneration. In phase II, 20 new animals underwent primary retrograde labeling of the tibial nerve, following which they were assigned to one of the following 3 groups: group 1, group 2, and group 4. Then, secondary retrograde labeling from the tibial nerve was performed at the study end point to quantify the native versus donor regenerated neuronal pool. RESULTS: In phase I studies, a significantly increased neuronal regeneration in group 1 (SETS) compared with all other groups was observed, but with modest (nonsignificant) improvement in electrophysiological and behavioral outcomes. In phase II experiments, the authors discovered that secondary labeling in group 1 was predominantly contributed from the donor (peroneal) pool. Double-labeling counts were dramatically higher in group 2 than in group 1, suggestive of hampered regeneration from the native tibial motor neuron pool across the NIC segment in the presence of SETS. CONCLUSIONS: SETS is indeed an effective strategy to enhance axonal regeneration, which is mainly contributed by the donor neuronal pool. Moreover, the presence of a distal SETS coaptation appears to negatively influence neuronal regeneration across the NIC segment. The clinical significance is that SETS should only employ synergistic donors, as the use of antagonistic donors can downgrade recovery.