We have located links that may give you full text access.
Significance of House-Brackmann facial nerve grading global score in the setting of differential facial nerve function.
Otology & Neurotology 2003 January
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical significance of the House-Brackmann facial nerve grading scale (HBFNGS) in the setting of differential function along the branches of the facial nerve.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of 38 patients with facial palsy who demonstrated differential facial function.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Patients with facial nerve dysfunction from any cause. Patients with complete facial nerve paralysis (House-Brackmann Grade 6) were excluded.
INTERVENTION: Physicians were provided with printed description of the HBFNGS and asked to report facial nerve function as a traditional global score and as a regional score based on the House-Brackmann scale for the forehead, eye, nose, and mouth. This was reported as F(w) E(x) N(y) M(z), where w, x, y, and z ranged from 1 to 6 based on the HBFNGS. Synkinesis was graded as none, mild, or severe.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The traditional HBFNGS score was compared with a regional grading facial nerve grading system based on the HBFNGS for the forehead, eye, nose, and mouth. Agreement between the traditional global score and the regional scores was analyzed.
RESULTS: In patients with variable facial weakness, the single House-Brackmann score did not fully communicate their facial function. Further, the single grade did not always correlate with the best or worst function along the four facial regions. The single House-Brackmann score most strongly correlated with the regional scoring of the eye (61%), followed by the nose/midface (40%), mouth (32%), and forehead (18%). The global score did not correlate with the worst regional score in 30 patients (79%). In 3 of 5 patients with synkinesis and an obligatory Grade 3 or higher in the global House-Brackmann grading system, the regional facial function was Grade 2 or better at one or more areas of the face.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with differential facial function, a single global number is inadequate to describe facial function and primarily reflects the function of the eye. Regional assessment using the HBFNGS and reported as F(w) E(x) N(y) M(z) more fully communicates facial function.
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study of 38 patients with facial palsy who demonstrated differential facial function.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Patients with facial nerve dysfunction from any cause. Patients with complete facial nerve paralysis (House-Brackmann Grade 6) were excluded.
INTERVENTION: Physicians were provided with printed description of the HBFNGS and asked to report facial nerve function as a traditional global score and as a regional score based on the House-Brackmann scale for the forehead, eye, nose, and mouth. This was reported as F(w) E(x) N(y) M(z), where w, x, y, and z ranged from 1 to 6 based on the HBFNGS. Synkinesis was graded as none, mild, or severe.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The traditional HBFNGS score was compared with a regional grading facial nerve grading system based on the HBFNGS for the forehead, eye, nose, and mouth. Agreement between the traditional global score and the regional scores was analyzed.
RESULTS: In patients with variable facial weakness, the single House-Brackmann score did not fully communicate their facial function. Further, the single grade did not always correlate with the best or worst function along the four facial regions. The single House-Brackmann score most strongly correlated with the regional scoring of the eye (61%), followed by the nose/midface (40%), mouth (32%), and forehead (18%). The global score did not correlate with the worst regional score in 30 patients (79%). In 3 of 5 patients with synkinesis and an obligatory Grade 3 or higher in the global House-Brackmann grading system, the regional facial function was Grade 2 or better at one or more areas of the face.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with differential facial function, a single global number is inadequate to describe facial function and primarily reflects the function of the eye. Regional assessment using the HBFNGS and reported as F(w) E(x) N(y) M(z) more fully communicates facial function.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app