Home  -  About us  -  Editorial board  -  Search  -  Ahead of print  -  Current issue  -  Archives  -  Instructions  -  Subscribe  -  Contacts  -  Advertise - Login 
 
 
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE - COMPARATIVE STUDY
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 267-271

Temporalis pull-through vs fascia lata augmentation in facial reanimation for facial paralysis


Director and Consultant Maxillofacial Surgeon, Balaji Dental and Craniofacial Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
S M Balaji
Balaji Dental and Craniofacial Hospital, 30, KB Dasan Road, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/2231-0746.200323

PMID: 28299269

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: Surgical rehabilitation of facial palsy is challenging as each case is unique and success rate is often unpredictable. In one technique, temporalis is elevated from origin preserving vessels, and this elevation increases the length which is tunneled into buccal tissues (pull-through technique, Group A). In the other technique, a harvested fascia lata is attached to temporalis after a coronoidectomy release and the fascia lata is attached to the modiolus (Group B). The aim of this study is to compare the two different surgical techniques. Materials and Methods: Case records of 22 cases, 15 females, and 7 males who were operated between 2008 and 2012 for facial palsy with at least 1-year follow-up, using either of the techniques were assessed for pull of muscle, postoperative pain, recovery time, motor control, and symmetry at rest. Descriptive statistics are presented. Results: The Group A (n = 7) and Group B (n = 15) formed the study group. In the Group A, residual asymmetry (n = 3), poor postoperative muscle pull (n = 2) were noticed while in the modified group it was 2 and 3, respectively. The technique used in Group B had better pull of muscle, symmetry, faster recovery time, and better motor control at 1-year follow-up than the conventional technique. Discussion and Conclusion: The difference between the two groups is due to preservation of original muscular architecture, vascular channel supply. As the muscle is not traumatized, no fibrosis occurs aiding regaining of normal function. In addition, the facial reanimation is more successful in the Group B. The mechanism and success behind the technique used in Group B is discussed elaborately in terms of localregional anatomy and physiology


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed546    
    Printed2    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded53    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal