1. Outcomes of Direct Lingual Nerve Repair After an Injury: A Systematic Review
- Author
-
Vincent B. Ziccardi, Sung Kiang Chuang, Mark Kogan, and Kevin C. Lee
- Subjects
medicine.medical_specialty ,2019-20 coronavirus outbreak ,Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ,MEDLINE ,Lingual Nerve ,Neurosurgical Procedures ,law.invention ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Key terms ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Internal medicine ,medicine ,Humans ,Lingual nerve ,Retrospective Studies ,business.industry ,Retrospective cohort study ,030206 dentistry ,Plastic Surgery Procedures ,Confidence interval ,Treatment Outcome ,Otorhinolaryngology ,030220 oncology & carcinogenesis ,Surgery ,Oral Surgery ,business - Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of direct lingual nerve repair after injury. Materials and Methods The studies in this review were compiled by using PubMed/Medline and ScienceDirect, which were searched by a single reviewer (M.K.) from their inception until March 10, 2020. Two independent reviewers (M.K. and V.B.Z.) who were blinded to each other's assessments reviewed full-text articles to assess for study inclusion. Outcomes were dichotomized as either functional sensory recovery (FSR) or no FSR. Clinical testing must have been assessed at a minimum of 6 months postoperatively. FSR was defined as grade S3, S3+, or S4 on the British Medical Research Council scale of neurosensory function. Studies were only eligible if they provided the number of patients treated with conduits or time from injury to repair and the associated rates of FSR with each intervention. Results The initial search using the key terms yielded 4,921 results, which was then eventually filtered down to 6 articles after multiple levels of appraisal. Five articles were retrospective cohort studies and 1 was a randomized controlled study. Four of the 6 studies reported an FSR of grade S3 or higher in 85% or more of the patients. Conduit use was not associated with a significantly greater likelihood of achieving FSR (pooled risk ratio = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.27; P = .17). Repair within 6 months was associated with significantly improved likelihood of achieving FSR (pooled risk ratio = 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 0.99; P = .04). Conclusions The use of conduits during repair was not associated with clinically significant increased FSR. Early repair was associated with a beneficial effect on FSR; however, heterogeneity was an issue with the studies. There is a lack of strong evidence owing to the nature of studies analyzed and the need for further research is required.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF