Macek J, Dubovská N, Bayezid K C, Streit L
Acta Chir Plast. 2025;67(2):82-91. doi: 10.48095/ccachp202582.
Long-standing facial nerve paralysis leads to profound functional, aesthetic, social, and psychological impairments, significantly reducing patients' quality of life (QOL). Lengthening temporalis myoplasty and mini-invasive temporalis muscle tendon transfer are considered standard treatment options for dynamic facial reanimation in patients with flaccid facial paralysis, particularly in patients for whom more extensive free functional muscle transfers may not be suitable. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate these two temporalis muscle-based reanimation techniques in an institutional patient cohort, as there is a lack of comparative studies addressing their outcomes.
Between 2015 and 2021, 23 patients with long-standing (>18 months) flaccid facial palsy underwent dynamic reanimation surgery using either lengthening temporalis myoplasty (N = 8) or mini-invasive temporalis muscle tendon transfer (N = 15). Patient selection favoured local transfers in older or comorbid patients or when cross--facial nerve grafts were contraindicated. Many patients also underwent adjunctive static procedures, such as nasal ala suspension (N = 7) and/or lagophthalmos correction (N = 17). Postoperative physiotherapy employed the Mirror-effect protocol to improve muscle control and smiling ability. Outcomes were assessed pre-and postoperatively using clinician-reported House-Brackmann (HB) and eFACE scores, as well as the patient-reported Facial Palsy Disability Questionnaire (FPDQ). Statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon paired test and Fisher's exact test (significance P < 0.05).
The mean patient age was 54.4 years (SD = 16.1), with 15 females and 8 males. The average follow-up to stable surgical results was 10.6 months (SD = 7.8). For the mini-invasive temporalis muscle tendon transfer group (N = 15), mean improvements were observed as follows: 1.6 HB points (SD = 0.6), 34.1% eFACE static (SD = 14.1), 28.1% eFACE dynamic (SD = 19.0), and 34.2% FPDQ overall score (SD = 11.3), with total of 3 revisions performed. For the temporalis myoplasty group (N = 8), mean improvements were 1.6 HB points (SD = 0.7), 27.4% eFACE static (SD = 18.6), 33.3% eFACE dynamic (SD = 17.2), and 26.2% FPDQ overall (SD = 15.7), with one revision surgery performed. No statistically significant difference in outcome was found between the two surgical techniques.
Both surgical techniques for facial reanimation evaluated in this study - the lengthening temporalis myoplasty and the minimally invasive temporalis tendon transfer -demonstrated significant improvements in clinician-graded facial function and QOL outcomes. Although the minimally invasive technique required a less extensive surgical field in the temporal area, it required additional graft harvesting and was associated with a slightly increased risk of revision surgery. A limitation of this study is the relatively small number of patients in each group, highlighting the need for prospective and/or multicentric studies to validate and confirm our findings.
长期面神经麻痹会导致严重的功能、美学、社交和心理障碍,显著降低患者的生活质量(QOL)。延长颞肌成形术和微创颞肌肌腱转移被认为是弛缓性面神经麻痹患者动态面部重建的标准治疗选择,特别是对于那些可能不适合更广泛的游离功能性肌肉转移的患者。本研究的目的是回顾性评估机构患者队列中这两种基于颞肌的重建技术,因为缺乏关于其结果的比较研究。
2015年至2021年期间,23例长期(>18个月)弛缓性面神经麻痹患者接受了动态重建手术,其中8例采用延长颞肌成形术,15例采用微创颞肌肌腱转移术。患者选择倾向于在老年患者或合并症患者中进行局部转移,或在跨面神经移植禁忌时进行。许多患者还接受了辅助静态手术,如鼻翼悬吊术(7例)和/或睑裂闭合不全矫正术(17例)。术后物理治疗采用镜像效应方案来改善肌肉控制和微笑能力。术前和术后使用临床医生报告的House-Brackmann(HB)和eFACE评分以及患者报告的面神经麻痹残疾问卷(FPDQ)评估结果。使用Wilcoxon配对检验和Fisher精确检验进行统计分析(显著性P<0.05)。
患者平均年龄为54.4岁(标准差=16.1),其中女性15例,男性8例。手术结果稳定后的平均随访时间为10.6个月(标准差=7.8)。对于微创颞肌肌腱转移组(15例),观察到的平均改善如下:HB评分提高1.6分(标准差=0.6),eFACE静态评分提高34.1%(标准差=14.1),eFACE动态评分提高28.1%(标准差=19.0),FPDQ总体评分提高34.2%(标准差=11.3),共进行了3次翻修手术。对于颞肌成形术组(8例),平均改善为HB评分提高1.6分(标准差=0.7),eFACE静态评分提高27.4%(标准差=18.6),eFACE动态评分提高33.3%(标准差=17.2),FPDQ总体评分提高26.2%(标准差=15.7),进行了1次翻修手术。两种手术技术在结果上未发现统计学显著差异。
本研究评估的两种面部重建手术技术——延长颞肌成形术和微创颞肌腱转移术——在临床医生分级的面部功能和生活质量结果方面均显示出显著改善。尽管微创技术在颞部区域所需的手术范围较小,但它需要额外采集移植物,并且与翻修手术的风险略有增加相关。本研究的一个局限性是每组患者数量相对较少,这突出了需要进行前瞻性和/或多中心研究来验证和证实我们的发现。