Clinical analysis of repeat microvascular decompression for recurrent hemifacial spasm
- 11 Downloads
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of repeat microvascular decompression (MVD) for recurrent hemifacial spasm (HFS). The clinical features, surgical findings, outcomes, and complications of 13 patients who underwent MVD with a history of prior MVD in Xuanwu Hospital between January 2010 and May 2017 were analysed retrospectively. All patients were successfully treated for their HFS but experienced recurrent symptoms and received repeat MVD. Teflon felt factors (9/13, 69.2%) and vascular changes (4/13, 30.8%) were the main reasons for recurrent HFS. With a mean follow-up of 34.6 months after surgery (ranging from 12 to 92 months), 11 (84.6%) patients achieved complete or major spasm alleviation and two patients (15.4%) achieved fair outcomes. Surgical complications included transited mild to moderate facial weakness in two patients (15.4%). None of the patients had serious surgical morbidities. Repeat MVD is an effective and safe treatment for recurrent HFS.
KeywordsHemifacial spasm Failed microvascular decompression Recurrent Re-operation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
- 17.Ichikawa T, Agari T, Kurozumi K, Maruo T, Satoh T, Date I (2011) “Double-Stick Tape” technique for transposition of an offending vessel in microvascular decompression: technical case report. Neurosurgery 68:377–382Google Scholar
- 20.El Refaee E, Langner S, Baldauf J, Matthes M, Kirsch M, Schroeder HWS (2013) Value of 3-dimensional high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging in detecting the offending vessel in hemifacial spasm: comparison with intraoperative high definition endoscopic visualization. Neurosurgery 73:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Sekula RF Jr, Frederickson BS A M. et al (2009) Utility of intraoperative electromyography in microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm: a meta-analysis. Neurosurg Focus 27:E10Google Scholar