Facial root entry/exit zone contact in microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: a historical control study

Xianxia Yan; Chengwen Ma; Junxiang Gu; Jianqiang Qu; Junjie Quan; Xi Zhang; Qin Song; Le Zhou

doi:10.21037/atm-20-7985

Facial root entry/exit zone contact in microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: a historical control study

Ann Transl Med. 2021 May;9(10):834. doi: 10.21037/atm-20-7985.

Authors

Xianxia Yan¹, Chengwen Ma¹, Junxiang Gu¹, Jianqiang Qu¹, Junjie Quan¹, Xi Zhang¹, Qin Song¹, Le Zhou¹

Affiliation

¹ Department of Neurosurgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.

Abstract

Background: Microvascular decompression (MVD) surgery is recognized as an effective treatment for hemifacial spasm (HFS). In MVD surgery, biocompatible materials are usually implanted in situ at the neurovascular conflict site in contact with the offending vessel and the facial root entry/exit zone (REZ). Another procedure of implanting the materials between the responsible vessel and the supraolivary fossa without REZ contact has also been applied. However, it is unclear whether there are any differences between these 2 procedures (REZ-contact procedure vs. REZ-non-contact procedure). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of the placement of implants (contacting or not contacting the facial REZ) on surgical operations and outcomes.

Methods: A historical control study was performed. Clinical data of HFS patients who underwent MVD between December 2016 and November 2018 were reviewed and categorized into 1 group with the REZ-contact procedure or another group with the REZ-non-contact procedure according to the decompression strategy they received. Clinical demographics, postoperative outcomes, and complications were collected and compared between the two groups.

Results: Not all patients are suitable for REZ-non-contact decompression. A total of 205 patients were enrolled: 112 in the REZ-contact group and 93 in the REZ-non-contact group. In the early postoperative period, the complete cure rate in the REZ-non-contact group was significantly higher than that in the REZ-contact group. The reappearance and partial relief rates in the REZ-contact group were significantly higher than those in the REZ-non-contact group. The incidence of short-term neurological complications, especially hearing loss and transient facial palsy, was lower in the REZ-non-contact group (P=0.043). But for long-term follow-up of >1 year, there was no significant difference between the two groups in either curative effects or neurological complications. The operating time for REZ-non-contact decompression was relatively longer than for REZ-contact decompression (P=0.000). An unexpected subdural hemorrhage occurred in the REZ-non-contact group.

Conclusions: REZ-non-contact decompression procedure showed superiority only in short-term postoperative outcomes. Given its limitations and potential risks, the REZ-non-contact procedure can be used as an alternative individualized strategy in MVD, and there is no need to pursue REZ-non-contact during the decompression.

Keywords: Hemifacial spasm (HFS); decompression procedure; facial root entry/exit zone; implants; microvascular decompression (MVD).