The Nottingham System: objective assessment of facial nerve function in the clinic.
ABSTRACT The House-Brackmann is the most widely accepted system for the clinical assessment of facial nerve function. It is, however, being subjective and discontinuous, prone to interobserver variation. The need for an objective system persists. The Nottingham System is described and compared to the Burres-Fisch system in a study of 29 subjects with varying degrees of facial nerve function, ranging from normal to total paralysis. Within-group component of variance analysis was 7% for the Nottingham System compared to 26% for the Burres-Fisch system. Bland and Altmans' analysis showed the Burres-Fisch system to be biased, overestimating small percentage scores, and underestimating large ones. The Nottingham System proved unbiased. The Nottingham System is recommended as an accurate objective continuous grading system for the rapid assessment of facial nerve function in the clinic.
SourceAvailable from: Alberto Grammatica[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Several modalities currently exist to rate the degree of facial function clinically but even though it has significant limitations, the most widely used scale is the House-Brackmann grading system (HBGS). A simplified scale is introduced here, the 'Rough' Grading System (RGS - Grade I: normal movement; Grade II: slight paralysis; Grade III: frank paralysis with eye closure; Grade IV: frank paralysis without eye closure; Grade V: almost complete paralysis with only slight movements; Grade VI: total paralysis). The aim of the present study was to verify the interrater reliability and the interscale validity of this simplified grading system. STUDY DESIGN: Scale validation study based on a prospective cohort. METHODS: Fifty patients with facial palsy, consecutively referred to our department were filmed while performing some codified facial movements. Then two independent groups (one rating using the HBGS, the other rating using the RGS) assigned a grade after reviewing the videos. The time required for the rating was also noted. RESULTS: The HBGS showed a mean value of interrater agreement of 0.46 while the RGS showed a mean value of 0.59. The concurrent validity between HBGS and RGS ranged from 0.86 to 0.90 (p < 0.001 for every comparison). There was no statistically significant difference between HBGS and RGS in the mean time taken for rating (p = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The RGS reached an adequate level of interrater reliability, higher than the HBGS. The correlation between the two scales is high and the times required for rating are similar. The present results may justify the use of the RGS in routine clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery: official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery 01/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.jcms.2012.11.047 · 1.25 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Dysfunction of the facial nerve is a common complication of parotidectomy. The functional deficit may be total or partial, and may include all or a single branch of the nerve. Despite a wide variety of the facial nerve grading systems, most of them have a limited utility in patients after parotidectomy. Therefore, existing scales assessing facial nerve function are compared to describe facial nerve outcomes after parotidectomy. The regional House-Brackmann, Sydney, and Yanagihara classification systems were utilized. The post-parotidectomy facial nerve grading system (PPFNGS) was created based on these three grading systems and also used for this study. The facial nerve function was assessed and recorded on the first postoperative day following conservative parotidectomy in 200 patients using all 4 scales by 3 otolaryngologists. The validity of the PPFNGS and existing facial nerve grading systems was examined by assessment of interrater agreement, intraclass correlation coefficient, internal consistency and construct validity. A deficit in the facial nerve function was found in 54 patients (27 %). Although results were consistent in all tested scales, the PPFNGS had a higher interrater agreement than the other three scales. PPFNGS is a new grading system designed for assessing the facial nerve function after parotidectomy in a quantitative and qualitative way and has a higher interrater agreement than other scales used to examine function of the 7th nerve.Archiv für Klinische und Experimentelle Ohren- Nasen- und Kehlkopfheilkunde 07/2014; DOI:10.1007/s00405-014-3196-y · 1.61 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Sunnybrook Facial Grading System is considered one of the best scales available to grade facial motility and postparetic synkinesis. To measure facial landmarks and movement excursion, a new software, the Facial Assessment by Computer Evaluation, has been proposed. The aim of this study was to quantify eye synkinesis improvement after botulinum toxin type A injections using the new software and to compare this method with the Sunnybrook grading system. The study included 40 injection sessions on 29 Caucasian outpatients with facial synkinesis. Before and 2 weeks after the injection, patients were evaluated using the Italian version of the Sunnybrook system. Eyelid fissure size at rest, during lip puckering, and while smiling was measured with the new software. After botulinum infiltration, the Sunnybrook grading system showed a global facial improvement with reduction of synkinesis and increase of static and dynamic symmetry. The Facial Assessment software detected an increase of ocular fissure measure at rest, during lip puckering, and especially during smiling, and the improvement was positively correlated with initial asymmetry. A single point of the Sunnybrook system synkinesis score corresponded to a mean difference of 0.77 mm during smiling and 1.0 mm during lip puckering. The Facial Assessment by Computer Evaluation measure allowed the authors to quantify the improvement of eye synkinesis after botulinum toxin type A injection. The Sunnybrook Facial Grading System provided an immediate instrument with which to monitor treatment in routine clinical practice, whereas the Facial Assessment system gave a more accurate quantitative assessment. Diagnostic, II.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 11/2013; 132(5):1255-64. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a48d16 · 3.33 Impact Factor