Weinberg Julie S, Kleiss Ingrid J, Knox Christopher J, Heaton James T, Hadlock Tessa A
From the *Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; †Department of Otorhinolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands; and ‡Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Ann Plast Surg. 2016 Jan;76(1):94-8. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000000273.
Many investigators study facial nerve regeneration using the rat whisker pad model, although widely standardized outcomes measures of facial nerve regeneration in the rodent have not yet been developed. The intrinsic whisker pad "sling" muscles producing whisker protraction, situated at the base of each individual whisker, are extremely small and difficult to study en bloc. Here, we compare the functional innervation of 2 potential reporter muscles for whisker pad innervation: the dilator naris (DN) and the levator labii superioris (LLS), to characterize facial nerve regeneration.
Motor supply of the DN and LLS was elucidated by measuring contraction force and compound muscle action potentials during stimulation of individual facial nerve branches, and by measuring whisking amplitude before and after DN distal tendon release.
The pattern of DN innervation matched that of the intrinsic whisker pad musculature (ie, via the buccal and marginal mandibular branches of the facial nerve), whereas the LLS seemed to be innervated almost entirely by the zygomatic branch, whose primary target is the orbicularis oculi muscle.
Although the LLS has been commonly used as a reporter muscle of whisker pad innervation, the present data show that its innervation pattern does not overlap substantially with the muscles producing whisker protraction. The DN muscle may serve as a more appropriate reporter for whisker pad innervation because it is innervated by the same facial nerve branches as the intrinsic whisker pad musculature, making structure/function correlations more accurate, and more relevant to investigators studying facial nerve regeneration.
许多研究者使用大鼠须垫模型来研究面神经再生，尽管尚未开发出用于啮齿动物面神经再生的广泛标准化的结果测量方法。位于每根胡须基部、产生胡须前伸的内在须垫“吊带”肌肉非常小，难以整体研究。在此，我们比较了用于须垫神经支配的2种潜在报告肌肉即鼻肌扩张部（DN）和提上唇肌（LLS）的功能性神经支配，以表征面神经再生。
通过在刺激单个面神经分支时测量收缩力和复合肌肉动作电位，以及在DN远端肌腱松解前后测量胡须摆动幅度，来阐明DN和LLS的运动供应。
DN的神经支配模式与内在须垫肌肉组织的模式相匹配（即通过面神经的颊支和下颌缘支），而LLS似乎几乎完全由颧支支配，其主要目标是眼轮匝肌。
尽管LLS一直被用作须垫神经支配的报告肌肉，但目前的数据表明，其神经支配模式与产生胡须前伸的肌肉没有实质性重叠。DN肌肉可能是须垫神经支配更合适的报告肌肉，因为它与内在须垫肌肉组织由相同的面神经分支支配，使结构/功能相关性更准确，并且与研究面神经再生的研究者更相关。
