A closer look at the paralyzed face; a narrative review of the neurobiological basis for functional and aesthetic appreciation between patients with a left and a right peripheral facial palsy.

BACKGROUND: The facial nerve or n. facialis (NVII) is the seventh cranial nerve and it is responsible for the innervation of the mimic muscles, the gustatory organ, and the secretomotor function to the salivary, lacrimal, nasal and palatine glands. Clinical presentation of Facial Palsy (FP) is characterized by unilateral facial asymmetry and may present with a change in taste, decreased saliva production, and dysarthria. A facial palsy has a notable effect on the facial appreciation by both the patient and the environment and also affects quality of life and emotional processing. There appear to be differences in the appreciation of people with a left and right facial palsy. PURPOSE OF THIS REVIEW: The purpose of the review is to give an overview of the anatomy of the facial nerve, neuro-anatomy of face processing, and hemispheric specialization and lateralization. Further,an overview is given of the clinical studies that translated the neuro-anatomical and neurobiological basis of these concepts into clinical studies. What this review adds: This review emphasizes the neurobiological evidence of differences in face processing between the left and right cerebral hemisphere, wherein it seems that the right hemisphere is superior in emotional processing. Several theories are proposed; 1) a familiarity hypothesis and 2) a left-right hemispheric specialization hypothesis. In clinical studies, promising evidence might indicate that, in patients with FP, there is indeed a difference in how left and right FP are perceived. This might give differences in decreased quality of life and finally in occurrence of depression. Further research must aim to substantiate these findings and determine the need for altering the standard therapeutic advice given to patients.

Negative predictors for satisfaction in patients seeking facial cosmetic surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Facial cosmetic surgery is becoming more popular. Patients generally indicate they are satisfied with the results. Certain patient characteristics, however, have been described as negative predictors for satisfaction. Psychopathology such as body dysmorphic disorder and personality disorders are notorious. Psychosocial and cultural factors are more difficult to distinguish. This systematic review defines the predictors, other than body dysmorphic disorder, of an unsatisfactory outcome after facial cosmetic surgery. The authors are also interested in whether valid preoperative assessment instruments are available to determine these factors. METHODS: An extensive systematic PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library search was performed. In addition, relevant studies from the reference lists of the selected articles were added. There were no publication-year restrictions, and the last search was conducted on July 20, 2014. All factors described as negative predictors for patient satisfaction after facial cosmetic surgery were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles were analyzed, including 11 prospective studies, two retrospective studies, one case study, eight reviews, and five expert opinions. The following factors were identified: male sex, young age, unrealistic expectations, minimal deformities, demanding patients, "surgiholics," relational or familial disturbances, an obsessive personality, and a narcissistic personality. CONCLUSIONS: This review indicates the possible demographic and psychosocial predictors for an unsatisfactory outcome of facial cosmetic surgery. A brief personality assessment tool that could be used to address predictors preoperatively was not found. The authors suggest use of the Glasgow Benefit Inventory to assess patient satisfaction postoperatively. Further research is being undertaken to develop such an instrument.

Long-term quality of life assessment in patients with auricular prostheses.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the quality of life of people with an auricular prosthesis. METHODS: A retrospective case series study was conducted. Quality of life was evaluated by an open-ended question form and 3 questionnaires: the Glasgow Benefit Inventory, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale, and the standard Medical Outcome Study Short-Form 12. The occurrence of peri-implant skin reactions (defined by Holgers), along with fixture stability and prosthesis data, were evaluated in 29 implants from 10 patients. The follow-up period varied between several months and more than 17 years. RESULTS: The 3 questionnaires showed an improvement in quality of life scores for all patients, and all patients would recommend the prosthesis. Skin reactions that needed treatment (ie, Holgers grades 2-4) were seen in 6.2% of all observations; 44.8% of the implants demonstrated either no reaction at all or redness only around the implant. A significant correlation was found between the Rosenberg Self-Esteem score and the number of prosthesis replacements. CONCLUSION: In general, patients seemed to be satisfied with the auricular prostheses, which did improve their quality of life. Furthermore, the quality of life was enhanced with higher quality prostheses and with proper hygiene to prevent skin reactions.