Long-Term Subjective and Objective Outcome After Primary Repair of Traumatic Facial Nerve Injuries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although traumatic facial nerve paralysis is a severe handicap, there are no follow-up studies evaluating outcome after primary repair of traumatic facial nerve injuries. From May 1988 to August 2005, 27 patients (mean age, 27 years) were operated for traumatic facial nerve lesions (mean number of affected branches, 2.2). End-to-end facial nerve repair was always performed. All patients were invited to our outpatient clinic for standardized questionnaires (Facial Disability Index, Short Form-36 Health Survey), physical examination (Sunnybrook Facial Grading System), and clinical photographs. Sixteen patients participated in the follow-up study (mean, 9.2 years). Mean Facial Disability Index Physical and Social scores were 86 and 81, respectively, indicating good subjective facial functioning. The mean Sunnybrook Facial Grading System score was 74 indicating adequate facial functioning. Mean physical and mental health scores (Short Form-36 Health Survey) were comparable with normative data. Primary end-to-end repair of traumatic facial nerve injuries results in good long-term objective and subjective functional and emotional outcome.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".