Comment On: Rethinking Oncologic Facial Nerve Reconstruction in the Acute Phase through Classification of the Level of Injury
Abraham Zavala,Lucio Santos
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1790605
2024-09-14
Facial Plastic Surgery
Abstract:Winter JM, Dimovska EO, Tzou CH, Rodriguez-Lorenzo A. Rethinking Oncologic Facial Nerve Reconstruction in the Acute Phase Through Classification of the Level of Injury. Facial Plast Surg 2024;40(04):450-458 We commend Winter et al for their insightful classification of facial nerve injuries in oncologic patients, which offers a structured approach to complex reconstructions. This work serves as a valuable guide for clinicians, streamlining the decision-making process. However, certain oncologic particularities may significantly impact facial reanimation strategies. As mentioned in the article, for Level I and II injuries, nerve transfers using ipsilateral cranial nerves are often preferred. Yet, certain intracranial resections involving the brainstem, meninges, or skull base may compromise not only the facial nerve but also potential donor nerves such as the trigeminal or hypoglossal, necessitating additional assessments to ensure their suitability. In Level II injuries caused by malignant parotid tumors, facial pain should raise suspicion of trigeminal nerve involvement due to perineural invasion. In such cases, the masseteric nerve (V3) might require careful evaluation before being used as a donor. Additionally, certain tumors known for early facial nerve invasion with retrograde spread, such as adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC), complicate the use of the proximal facial nerve stump as a donor postresection. The presence of skip lesions in ACC further diminishes the significance of "clear" margins, making primary reanimation using this nerve inadvisable. Cross-face nerve grafts are the only technique that allows for the restoration of emotionally mediated, spontaneous facial motion, but they must be used cautiously in cases where there is a risk of bilateral facial nerve involvement such as in neurofibromatosis type 2. Although bilateral parotid malignancies are rare, the contralateral facial nerve often remains a viable donor. This commentary is not intended as criticism but rather to offer certain oncologic considerations that complement and extend the authors' framework. By integrating these considerations, surgeons can further enhance patient safety in oncologic facial nerve reconstruction. We thank the authors for their significant contribution and hope this discussion encourages ongoing advancements in the field. Article published online: 12 September 2024 © 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
surgery