This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health grant number RO1NS071067. The authors have no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Facial Plastics and Reconstructive Surgery
Facial nerve repair
Fibrin Adhesive Coaptation versus Epineurial Suture Repair in a Rodent Model
Article first published online: 27 NOV 2012
Copyright © 2012 The American Laryngological, Rhinological, and Otological Society, Inc.
Volume 123, Issue 7, pages 1618–1621, July 2013
How to Cite
Knox, C. J., Hohman, M. H., Kleiss, I. J., Weinberg, J. S., Heaton, J. T. and Hadlock, T. A. (2013), Facial nerve repair. The Laryngoscope, 123: 1618–1621. doi: 10.1002/lary.23885
- Issue published online: 24 JUN 2013
- Article first published online: 27 NOV 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 22 OCT 2012
- Fibrin adhesive;
- facial nerve;
Repair of the transected facial nerve has traditionally been accomplished with microsurgical neurorrhaphy; however, fibrin adhesive coaptation (FAC) of peripheral nerves has become increasingly popular over the past decade. We compared functional recovery following suture neurorrhaphy to FAC in a rodent facial nerve model.
Prospective, randomized animal study.
Sixteen rats underwent transection and repair of the facial nerve proximal to the pes anserinus. Eight animals underwent epineurial suture (ES) neurorrhaphy, and eight underwent repair with fibrin adhesive (FA). Surgical times were documented for all procedures. Whisking function was analyzed on a weekly basis for both groups across 15 weeks of recovery.
Rats experienced whisking recovery consistent in time course and degree with prior studies of rodent facial nerve transection and repair. There were no significant differences in whisking amplitude, velocity, or acceleration between suture and FA groups. However, the neurorrhaphy time with FA was 70% shorter than for ES (P < 0.05).
Although we found no difference in whisking recovery between suture and FA repair of the main trunk of the rat facial nerve, the significantly shorter operative time for FA repair makes this technique an attractive option. The relative advantages of both techniques are discussed.
Level of Evidence