» Articles » PMID: 32745534

Outcomes of Direct Lingual Nerve Repair After an Injury: A Systematic Review

Overview
Date 2020 Aug 4
PMID 32745534
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Surgical outcomes of the surgical techniques following management of iatrogenic trigeminal nerve injuries: A systematic review.

Almohammadi T, Yates J, Aljohani M, Alshehri S Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(4):499-508.

PMID: 38690384 PMC: 11056400. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.12.018.


Utility of MR Neurography for the Evaluation of Peripheral Trigeminal Neuropathies in the Postoperative Period.

Thornton T, Xia S, Zuniga J, Chhabra A AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2024; 45(4):525-531.

PMID: 38423745 PMC: 11288565. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A8152.


Visualization of Inferior Alveolar and Lingual Nerve Pathology by 3D Double-Echo Steady-State MRI: Two Case Reports with Literature Review.

Al-Haj Husain A, Schonegg D, Valdec S, Stadlinger B, Gander T, Essig H J Imaging. 2022; 8(3).

PMID: 35324630 PMC: 8954741. DOI: 10.3390/jimaging8030075.