Download PDF
J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 2022; 83(02): 183-186
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1720994
Technical Note

A New Application of Gelatin Sponge in the Treatment of Hemifacial Spasm by Microvascular Decompression: A Technical Note

Bowen Chang
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai, China
,
Yinda Tang
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai, China
,
Xiangyu Wei
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai, China
,
Shiting Li
1   Department of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai, China
› Author Affiliations Funding No funding was received for this research.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Microvascular decompression (MVD) for facial nerve remains the highly efficient hemifacial spasm (HFS) treatment. Nonetheless, a variety of cases have poor response to MVD. Using Teflon plus gelatin sponge in MVD seems to be a good solution. No existing study has examined the efficacy of using Teflon combined with gelatin sponge during MVD for HFS. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the efficacy of Teflon combined with gelatin sponge in HFS patients relative to that of Teflon alone.

Patients and Methods We retrospectively compared the follow-up results of patients treated with Teflon and gelatin sponge with those treated with Teflon alone previously. Six hundred and eighty-eight primary HFS patients undergoing surgery from January 2010 to January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Three hundred and forty-seven cases received simple Teflon, while 342 cases underwent Teflon combined with gelatin sponge.

Results In the Teflon plus gelatin sponge group, the incidences of facial palsy and hearing loss at 1 day, 1 year, and 2 years following surgery was significantly lower than those in the simple Teflon group. Differences in the success rates between Teflon plus gelatin sponge and the simple Teflon group were not statistically significant at 1 day, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery. The recurrence rate in the Teflon plus gelatin sponge group was significantly lower at 2 years.

Conclusion For HFS patients undergoing MVD, using Teflon plus gelatin sponge can remarkably reduce the incidence of recurrence, facial palsy, and hearing loss compared with those using Teflon alone.

Keywords

microvascular decompression - hemifacial spasm - gelatin sponge - Teflon - complication


Publication History

Received: 15 April 2020

Accepted: 08 June 2020

Article published online:
19 May 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 McLaughlin MR, Jannetta PJ, Clyde BL, Subach BR, Comey CH, Resnick DK. Microvascular decompression of cranial nerves: lessons learned after 4400 operations. J Neurosurg 1999; 90 (01) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Karki P, Yamagami M, Takasaki K. et al. Microvascular decompression in patients aged 30 years or younger. Asian J Neurosurg 2019; 14 (01) 111-117
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sindou M, Mercier P. Microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: surgical techniques and intraoperative monitoring. Neurochirurgie 2018; 64 (02) 133-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sindou M, Mercier P. Microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: outcome on spasm and complications. A review. Neurochirurgie 2018; 64 (02) 106-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hyun SJ, Kong DS, Park K. Microvascular decompression for treating hemifacial spasm: lessons learned from a prospective study of 1,174 operations. Neurosurg Rev 2010; 33 (03) 325-334 , discussion 334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jeon CJ, Kong DS, Lee JA, Park K. The efficacy and safety of microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm in elderly patients. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2010; 47 (06) 442-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Soriano-Baron H, Vales-Hidalgo O, Arvizu-Saldana E, Moreno-Jimenez S, Revuelta-Gutierrez R. Hemifacial spasm: 20-year surgical experience, lesson learned. Surg Neurol Int 2015; 6: 83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ravina K, Strickland BA, Rennert RC, Bakhsheshian J, Russin JJ, Giannotta SL. Revision microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia and hemifacial spasm: factors associated with surgical failure. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2019; 80 (01) 31-39
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Feng B-H, Zheng X-S, Wang X-H. et al. Management of vessels passing through the facial nerve in the treatment of hemifacial spasm. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2015; 157 (11) 1935-1940 , discussion 1940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Deep NL, Graffeo CS, Copeland WR. et al. Teflon granulomas mimicking cerebellopontine angle tumors following microvascular decompression. Laryngoscope 2017; 3: 715-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Dou N-N, Zhong J, Liu M-X. et al. Teflon might be a factor accounting for a failed microvascular decompression in hemifacial spasm: a technical note. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 2016; 94 (03) 154-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zhong J, Li ST, Zhu J. et al. A clinical analysis on microvascular decompression surgery in a series of 3000 cases. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2012; 114 (07) 846-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Zhong J, Zhu J, Sun H. et al. Microvascular decompression surgery: surgical principles and technical nuances based on 4000 cases. Neurol Res 2014; 36 (10) 882-893
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bigder MG, Kaufmann AM. Failed microvascular decompression surgery for hemifacial spasm due to persistent neurovascular compression: an analysis of reoperations. J Neurosurg 2016; 124 (01) 90-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rzaev DA, Kulikova EV, Moysak GI, Voronina EI, Ageeva TA. Teflon granuloma after microvascular decompression of the trigeminal nerve. Vopr Neirokhir 2016; 2: 78-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Matsushima T, Yamaguchi T, Inoue TK, Matsukado K, Fukui M. Recurrent trigeminal neuralgia after microvascular decompression using an interposing technique. Teflon felt adhesion and the sling retraction technique. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2000; 142 (05) 557-561
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Capelle H-H, Brandis A, Tschan CA, Krauss JK. Treatment of recurrent trigeminal neuralgia due to Teflon granuloma. J Headache Pain 2010; 11 (04) 339-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Kasuya H, Kuroi Y, Yokosako S, Koseki H, Tani S. Intraoperative and postoperative bleeding in microvascular decompression for trigeminal neuralgia. World Neurosurg 2018; 118: e123-e128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jiang X, Wu M, Fu X. et al. Microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm associated with vertebral artery: biomedical glue-coated Teflon sling transposition technique. World Neurosurg 2018; 120: e342-e348
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar