Restoration of Trigeminal Cutaneous Sensation with Cross-Face Sural Nerve Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Although treating facial palsy is considered debilitating for patients, trigeminal nerve palsy and sensory deficits of the face are overlooked components of disability. Complete anesthesia leaves patients susceptible to occult injury, and facial sensation is an important component of interaction and activities of daily living. Sensory reconstruction is well established in the restoration of hand sensation; however, only one previous report proposed a surgical strategy for sensory nerve reconstruction of the face with use of nerve transfers. Nerve transfers, when used alone, have limited application because of their restricted arc of rotation in the face; extending their arc by adding nerve grafts greatly expands their utility. The following cases demonstrate the early results after V2 and V3 reconstruction with cross-face nerve grafts in three patients with acquired trigeminal nerve palsy. Cross-face nerve grafts using the sural nerve permit more proximal reconstruction of the infraorbital and mental nerves, which allows reinnervation of their entire cutaneous distribution. All patients demonstrated improved sensation in the reconstructed dermatomes, and no patients reported donor-site abnormalities. Cross-face nerve grafts result in minimal donor-site morbidity and are promising as a surgical strategy to address sensory deficits of the face. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".