MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Comparison of Commissure Excursion following Gracilis Muscle Transplantation for Facial Paralysis Using a Cross-Face Nerve Graft versus the Motor Nerve to the Masseter Nerve

2006· article· en· W2013796627 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGracilis muscleFacial nerveAnatomyFacial paralysisCommissureTransplantationMotor nerveMasseter muscleAccessory nerveSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The microneurovascular transfer of a free muscle transplant is the procedure of choice for facial animation in a child with facial paralysis. One of the critical factors of this procedure is the selection of a motor nerve to innervate the transplanted muscle. METHODS: From 1989 to 1999, 166 free segmental gracilis muscle transfers were performed in 121 children for facial animation. The cross-face nerve graft was used in 70 procedures (cross-face nerve graft group) to innervate the muscle by branches of the seventh nerve for the normal side. The ipsilateral masseteric nerve was used in 94 procedures (50 patients, masseter group) and the ipsilateral accessory nerve was used in two procedures (one patient). To compare the operative procedures between the first two groups, all charts were reviewed. The extent of oral commissure movement was determined by measurements taken from the tragion to the oral commissure, both at rest and with full smile. In the cross-face nerve graft group (n = 20), the extents were measured on both the normal side and the reconstructed side; in the masseter group (n = 16), they were measured on the left and right sides. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the two groups (p < 0.05) for the mean age at the time of muscle transplantation, for the total operation time for muscle transplantation, and for the length of the muscle used or for the fraction of circumference of the segment of gracilis muscle used. Although the operative variables were similar between two groups, the muscle excursion differed. Excursion in the cross-face nerve graft group was less than that on the right (p = 0.0006) or left (p = 0.0000) in the masseter group. It was also less than on the normal side (p = 0.0000) of the cross-face nerve graft group. Also, there was no significant difference between the left and right sides within the masseter group (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the extent of oral commissure movement in the masseter group was similar to that of the normal side in the cross-face nerve graft group (p = 0.35, p = 0.61). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that segmental gracilis muscle transplantation using the motor nerve to the masseter nerve for facial animation in children is a very reproducible operation and provides a commissure excursion in the range of normal.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it