Role of stem cells-based in facial nerve reanimation: A meta-analysis of histological and neurophysiological outcomes

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

• Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
• Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
• Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
• Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
• Emerging · Emerging topic under active research

Abstract (original English)

Background Treatments involving stem cell (SC) usage represent novel and potentially interesting alternatives in facial nerve reanimation. Current literature includes the use of SC in animal model studies to promote graft survival by enhancing nerve fiber growth, spreading, myelinization, in addition to limiting fibrotic dege neration after surgery. However, the effectiveness of the clinical use of SC in facial nerve reanimation has not been clarified yet. Aim To investigate the histological, neurophysiological, and functional outcomes in facial reanimation using SC, compared to autograft. Methods Our study is a systematic review of the literature, consistently conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement guidelines. The review question was: In facial nerve reanimation on rats, has the use of stem cells revealed as effective when compared to autograft, in terms of histological, neurophysiological, and functional outcomes? Random-effect meta-analysis was conducted on histological and neurophysiological data from the included comparative studies. Results After screening 148 manuscript, five papers were included in our study. 43 subjects were included in the SC group, while 40 in the autograft group. The meta-analysis showed no significative differences between the two groups in terms of myelin thickness [CI: -0.10 (-0.20,

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.