Immediate Repair of Transected Inferior Alveolar Nerves in Sagittal Split Osteotomies

DANG (Depth-Adjusted Nerve Guide) - A Technical Note

Traditional surgical approaches to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) pose a technical challenge and risk iatrogenic damage to healthy, uninvolved nerve tissue. The use of computer-assisted virtual surgical planning and fabrication of surgical guides has shown efficacy in various craniomaxillofacial surgical procedures, and may provide greater precision in accessing the inferior alveolar canal and allow for a more conservative approach. The addition of a depth control feature to a tooth-borne and bone-borne surgical guide, with the use of a standard contra-angle handpiece, provides safe and efficient access for IAN repair. This report describes this novel technique involving a guided transoral approach to the IAN for excision of a neurofibroma of the inferior alveolar nerve, with immediate peripheral nerve allograft IAN reconstruction.

Sensory Restoration of the Facial Region

Normal sensitivity of the face is very important for preserving its integrity and function as an efferent source of information for the brain. The trigeminal nerve, which is the largest cranial nerve, conducts most of facial sensory function through its 3 branches: the ophthalmic nerve (V1), the maxillary nerve (V2), and the mandibular nerve (V3). The trigeminal nerve may be damaged by a variety of etiologies including inflammatory disorders, brain tumor resection, trauma, iatrogenic injury, or congenital anomalies. Temporary or permanent damage can lead to numbness, lip-biting injury, corneal anesthesia, and, in the worst scenario, even blindness. Different age groups, mechanisms of the injury, and the time between injury and repair can affect the final result of the nerve repair. Unlike the well-understood facial nerve palsy, so far there is no universal approach to restore the facial sensory function. This article serves to thoroughly review the basic anatomy of trigeminal nerve, diagnosis of sensory nerve dysfunction, and attempts to establish a protocol for treatment and rehabilitation of affected patients.

Success of surgical interventions for direct dental implant-related injuries to the mandibular nerve: a review

To the best of our knowledge there are no guidelines regarding the surgical management of dental implant-related injuries to the mandibular nerve. This review aims to investigate the success of different surgical interventions. Neurosensory injury to the mandibular branch of the trigeminal nerve can occur during administration of local anaesthetic, elevation of the flap, preparation for osteotomy, and placement of the implant. Surgical interventions include extraction of the implant, external decompression, internal neurolysis, excision of a neuroma, neurorrhaphy, nerve grafting, and low-level laser therapy. The following electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcome measures included patient-reported outcomes such as pain and altered sensation. A total of 185 publications were obtained, of which 21 were included in the qualitative synthesis (2 randomised controlled trials (RCT), 9 controlled cohort studies, and 10 case reports/series). They were all screened in consideration of the exclusion criteria and appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, the Newcastle Ottawa scale, and the modified Newcastle Ottawa scale. Results were triangulated to evaluate their level of agreement. The extraction of dental implants less than 36hours after injury to the mandibular nerve results in the most successful resolution of neurosensory dysfunction. Various microsurgical techniques have shown less success in obtaining neurosensory recovery than extraction of the implant. However, microsurgery is worthwhile, as it improves neurosensory dysfunction and reduces dysaesthesia in the majority of patients. Direct suturing and external decompression can result in good neurosensory recovery, and nerve grafts are also successful whenever tension-free direct suturing is not possible. Low-level laser therapy has been shown to achieve some neurosensory improvement.

Relationship Between the Quantity of Nerve Exposure During Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy Surgery and Sensitive Recovery

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate how different exposures of the V3 nerves during orthognathic surgery impact neurosensory disturbances.

METHODS

The study included 127 patients who underwent either bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) or BSSO with maxillary le Fort 1. They were divided into 6 groups, identified by the quantity of V3 nerve exposure. All patients were examined in a pre-op period and again after 1, 3, 6 months post-op. The standardized tests used were to clarify the objective and subjective neurosensory status of the exposed nerve. Neurosensory evaluation included; a pin prick test, the 2 points discriminator, light touch, warm and cold tests, and blunt discrimination. They were all done bilaterally on the lower lip area.

RESULTS

In only 2 patients the nerve was damaged during surgery and thus they were not included in this study. In 10.2% of patients there was no nerve exposure, 25.2% had longitudinal vestibular segment nerve exposed, 22.8% had the longitudinal upper-vestibular segment exposed, 20.5% had the longitudinal lower-vestibular segment exposed, 14.2% had the longitudinal upper-lower-vestibular segment exposed, and in 7.1% of patients the nerve was totally exposed. Given the estimated time of 1 month there was 100% recovery in patients whose nerve was unexposed. Considering the other patients, the authors had a variable number of patients who did not recover completely.

CONCLUSION

The authors estimate a correlation between the recovery time and the quantity of the exposed nerve. There is a high incidence of neurosensory disturbance in the lower lip and chin after BSSO and intraoperative quantity of nerve exposure.

Evidence-based outcomes following inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injury and repair: a systematic review

The inferior alveolar nerve (IAN) and lingual (LN) are susceptible to iatrogenic surgical damage. Systematically review recent clinical evidence regarding IAN/LN repair methods and to develop updated guidelines for managing injury. Recent publications on IAN/LN microsurgical repair from Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were screened by title/abstract. Main texts were appraised for exclusion criteria: no treatment performed or results provided, poor/lacking procedural description, cohort <3 patients. Of 366 retrieved papers, 27 were suitable for final analysis. Treatment type for injured IANs/LNs depended on injury type, injury timing, neurosensory disturbances and intra-operative findings. Best functional nerve recovery occurred after direct apposition and suturing if nerve ending gaps were <10 mm; larger gaps required nerve grafting (sural/greater auricular nerve). Timing of microneurosurgical repair after injury remains debated. Most authors recommend surgery when neurosensory deficit shows no improvement 90 days post-diagnosis. Nerve transection diagnosed intra-operatively should be repaired in situ; minor nerve injury repair can be delayed. No consensus exists regarding optimal methods and timing for IAN/LN repair. We suggest a schematic guideline for treating IAN/LN injury, based on the most current evidence. We acknowledge that additional RCTs are required to provide definitive confirmation of optimal treatment approaches.

Interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injury

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve or both is a known complication of oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures. Injury to these two branches of the mandibular division of the trigeminal nerve may result in altered sensation associated with the ipsilateral lower lip or tongue or both and may include anaesthesia, paraesthesia, dysaesthesia, hyperalgesia, allodynia, hypoaesthesia and hyperaesthesia. Injury to the lingual nerve may also affect taste perception on the affected side of the tongue. The vast majority (approximately 90%) of these injuries are temporary in nature and resolve within eight weeks. However, if the injury persists beyond six months it is deemed to be permanent. Surgical, medical and psychological techniques have been used as a treatment for such injuries, though at present there is no consensus on the preferred intervention, or the timing of the intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of different interventions and timings of interventions to treat iatrogenic injury of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerves.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trial Register (to 9 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 9 October 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 9 October 2013). No language restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions to treat patients with neurosensory defect of the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve or both as a sequela of iatrogenic injury.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We performed data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We contacted authors to clarify the inclusion criteria of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies assessed as at high risk of bias, reporting data from 26 analysed participants were included in this review. The age range of participants was from 17 to 55 years. Both trials investigated the effectiveness of low-level laser treatment compared to placebo laser therapy on inferior alveolar sensory deficit as a result of iatrogenic injury.Patient-reported altered sensation was partially reported in one study and fully reported in another. Following treatment with laser therapy, there was some evidence of an improvement in the subjective assessment of neurosensory deficit in the lip and chin areas compared to placebo, though the estimates were imprecise: a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the chin of 8.40 cm (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.67 to 13.13) and a difference in mean change in neurosensory deficit of the lip of 21.79 cm (95% CI 5.29 to 38.29). The overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low; the outcome data were fully reported in one small study of 13 patients, with differential drop-out in the control group, and patients suffered only partial loss of sensation. No studies reported on the effects of the intervention on the remaining primary outcomes of pain, difficulty eating or speaking or taste. No studies reported on quality of life or adverse events.The overall quality of the evidence was very low as a result of limitations in the conduct and reporting of the studies, indirectness of the evidence and the imprecision of the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is clearly a need for randomised controlled clinical trials to investigate the effectiveness of surgical, medical and psychological interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injuries. Primary outcomes of this research should include: patient-focused morbidity measures including altered sensation and pain, pain, quantitative sensory testing and the effects of delayed treatment.