Selective Neurectomy for Postfacial Paralysis Synkinesis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial synkinesis is characterized by unintentional contractions of facial musculature secondary to aberrant facial nerve healing. The associated impairment in facial functioning results in a significant decrease in patients' quality of life. The mainstay treatment for postfacial paralysis synkinesis (PFPS) is chemodenervation and physiotherapy, which requires long-term maintenance neurotoxin injections. This can lead to treatment resistance. Selective neurectomy of the distal branches of the facial nerve has been suggested as an effective surgical treatment of PFPS. This study aims to provide a comprehensive systematic review evaluating the efficacy of selective neurectomy for patients presenting with PFPS. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched from inception until July 2022. Studies that investigated postoperative outcomes of pediatric and/or adult patients who underwent selective neurectomy as a treatment for PFPS were included. The database search identified 1,967 studies, and 11 were ultimately included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. These 11 studies represented 363 patients. Studies reported on outcomes following selective neurectomy with or without adjuvant therapies for patients with PFPS. The main outcome categories identified were clinician-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcomes. The studies that used clinician-reported outcomes found an improvement in both synkinesis and facial nerve paralysis (FNP) outcomes following selective neurectomy according to their respective grading systems. Three studies looked at patient-reported outcomes and found increased patient-reported quality of life and satisfaction following selective neurectomy. The most reported complications were upper lip contracture, uneven cheek surface, lagophthalmos, and temporary oral incompetence. Selective neurectomy has demonstrated stable or improved synkinesis, FNP, and quality of life outcomes in patients with PFPS. This approach should be considered for patients with PFPS, particularly for patients with refractory symptoms or those who are unable to undergo continued medical management.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".