PubMed · 5940797
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S M Jaffari. 1966. Cephalic tetanus.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5940797/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
A certain percentage of patients complain of numbness or pain in the palatine mucosa, posterior to the incisors, following septal surgery. The symptoms arise from lesions of the nasopalatine nerve near the floor of the nose. In order to demonstrate the sequelae of these lesions, we performed a prospective study on 31 individuals undergoing septoplasty. A maxillary-premaxillary approach to the nasal floor was used on one side in a group of 13 patients and on both sides in a group of 18 patients according to the respective unilateral or bilateral septal pathology. Unilateral or bilateral division of the nasopalatine nerves was anticipated. The threshold of sensitivity to a direct current of up to 500 mA with pulses of 100 msec duration was determined preoperatively. The test was repeated 8 days postoperatively at 5 defined points of the palatine mucosa: posterior to both incisors and both canine teeth and at the incisive papilla. In addition, the patients were questioned about distinct palatine sensations 8 days and 3 to 5 months after septoplasty. Neither group showed any significant elevation of the threshold of sensitivity to a direct current 8 days postoperatively, regardless of whether unilateral or bilateral subperiostal tunnels of the nasal floor had been. However, thirteen patients (32%) described disturbances of sensitivity, most frequently numbness or soreness. The symptoms occurred in both groups with equal distribution. After an interval of 3 to 5 months postoperatively, 16% of all operated patients still had some kind of palatine discomfort.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Intraoperative monitoring of cranial nerves is performed to minimize postoperative cranial nerve dysfunction. We performed electrophysiological monitoring of motor cranial nerves with a NIM 2 unit from Xomed Treace and a patient multiplexer developed in our clinic. This multiplexer allows simultaneous monitoring of 4 cranial nerves and is additionally equipped with a bipolar stimulation mode. This intraoperative monitoring was employed during 102 skull base operations. Of these 102 operations, 44 were acoustic neuroma removals by translabyrinthine approach and 36 by a middle fossa approach. Various operations including removal of tumours of the jugular foramen and the infratemporal fossa were performed in the remaining 22 patients. The facial nerve, being the most frequently monitored nerve, was evaluated both pre- and intraoperatively. Electrophysiologic data were evaluated with respect to their predictive value for postoperative facial nerve function. The relative per cent decrease in amplitude of the EMG after resection compared to that observed before resection seems to be of some predictive value for postoperative facial nerve function. A 50-60% decrease or more is associated with an increase in the House classification. Intraoperative monitoring is a useful tool in skull base surgery allowing for safer and faster identification of motor nerves in pathologic anatomic conditions. It allows the surgeon a degree of comfort by providing immediate information regarding the status of the nerve. It may also improve post-operative nerve function and shorten operating time. Additionally, neuromonitoring provides some information about expected postoperative facial nerve function.