4.1 Article

Outcome Following Lingual Nerve Repair With Vein Graft Cuff: A Preliminary Report

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.03.018

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The object of this study was to assess the effects of an inside-out vein graft as a cuff after direct suture on human lingual nerve regeneration and recovery after iatrogenic lingual nerve injury. Patients and Methods: Ten patients with unilateral lingual nerve anesthesia as a complication of iatrogenic injury after third molar extraction underwent microneurosurgical procedures for the injured lingual nerve under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized into 2 groups. In group A, after removing the neuromas and peripheral scars surrounding the torn nerves, the 2 nerve ends were sutured without tension. In group B, after the same procedure, including the same suturing procedure, an inside-out vein graft was placed as a cuff after the direct suture. Each group was followed at least once every 6 months for 1 year after the procedure. Postoperative outcomes were evaluated using the Pogrel criteria, the Sunderland grade, and the British Medical Research Council Scale (MRCS). Results: There were no particular differences between groups A and B at 6 and 12 months after the operation. However, based on the MRCS criteria, there was a clearly better result in group B than in group A at 6 and 12 months after the operation, and the recovery of gustatory sensation tended to be better in group B than in group A 1 year after the operation. Conclusion: This inside-out vein graft as a cuff after direct suturing may facilitate faster lingual nerve regeneration than the traditional direct suture approach. The inside-out vein graft as a cuff may provide the advantages of preventing axonal escape at the suture lines, minimizing nerve entrapment, and preventing neuroma formation in the space between the sutured nerves. (C) 2014 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据