Journal Logo


Reply: Lengthening Temporalis Myoplasty for Single-Stage Smile Reconstruction in Children with Facial Paralysis

Panossian, Andre M.D.

Author Information
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: November 2016 - Volume 138 - Issue 5 - p 950e-951e
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002694
  • Free


I thank the authors for their commentary. Allow me to respond to some very salient points that they bring up regarding my article entitled, “Lengthening Temporalis Myoplasty for Single-Stage Smile Reconstruction in Children with Facial Paralysis” in the April of 2016 edition of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.1 First, the article does not seek to supplant the gracilis muscle transfer (either one- or two-stage varieties) with the temporalis technique described by Labbé and Huault. As the authors point out, the goal of spontaneity can only be achieved truly with a two-stage facial reanimation technique using a cross-face nerve graft, followed several months later by a gracilis or other muscle transplant. The goal in this situation is to make the activation of the transplanted muscle as seamless as possible by using the functioning contralateral facial nerve. From a functional standpoint, nothing can replace the spontaneity that can be achieved in this setting. However, spontaneity aside, an argument can be made regarding the overall appearance of the patient postoperatively in comparison with other available techniques. This is a highly subjective comparison. The purpose of my article is to highlight my experience with the lengthening temporalis myoplasty in a largely pediatric practice. As I summarized in the article, the lengthening temporalis myoplasty is far from perfect and still carries a high revision rate for several theoretical reasons that I am confident will be remedied as experience grows with this technique. Therefore, for the purpose of training impressionable young plastic surgeons, I am in agreement with classic teaching regarding reanimation for facial paralysis by preferring the use of a functioning facial nerve when available. However, one cannot argue that there are still drawbacks with the procedure with regard to cheek bulk, increased operative times, hospitalization requirements, longer time intervals to animation, and the difficulty of performing meaningful revisions. These factors must also be taken into account and weighed against the goal of spontaneity. Ultimately, the message of my article is to present options so that patients can make informed decisions about their own preferences for reconstruction. I strongly believe in empowering patients in my practice and in all aspects of their care.


The author has no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.

Andre Panossian, M.D.
Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern
Los Angeles, Calif.


1. Panossian A. Lengthening temporalis myoplasty for single-stage smile reconstruction in children with facial paralysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;137:12511261.


Letters to the Editor, discussing material recently published in the Journal, are welcome. They will have the best chance of acceptance if they are received within 8 weeks of an article’s publication. Letters to the Editor may be published with a response from the authors of the article being discussed. Discussions beyond the initial letter and response will not be published. Letters submitted pertaining to published Discussions of articles will not be printed. Letters to the Editor are not usually peer reviewed, but the Journal may invite replies from the authors of the original publication. All Letters are published at the discretion of the Editor.

Letters submitted should pose a specific question that clarifies a point that either was not made in the article or was unclear, and therefore a response from the corresponding author of the article is requested.

Authors will be listed in the order in which they appear in the submission. Letters should be submitted electronically via PRS’ enkwell, at

We reserve the right to edit Letters to meet requirements of space and format. Any financial interests relevant to the content of the correspondence must be disclosed. Submission of a Letter constitutes permission for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and its licensees and asignees to publish it in the Journal and in any other form or medium.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in the Letters to the Editor represent the personal opinions of the individual writers and not those of the publisher, the Editorial Board, or the sponsors of the Journal. Any stated views, opinions, and conclusions do not reflect the policy of any of the sponsoring organizations or of the institutions with which the writer is affiliated, and the publisher, the Editorial Board, and the sponsoring organizations assume no responsibility for the content of such correspondence.

The Journal requests that individuals submit no more than five (5) letters to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in a calendar year.

Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons