PTPilotJMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies2026

Emotional Training via Telerehabilitation After Surgical Treatment for Facial Palsy: Prospective, Assessor-Blinded, 2-Arm Pilot Cohort Study.

Matteo Guidetti, Silvia Cupello, Jacopo Reali and 6 others

PMID 42044219

WHAT IT FOUND

The two delivery modes showed no clear difference on facial symmetry, disability, or anxiety scores.

Both in-person and telerehabilitation emotional training after triple innervation surgery were feasible, with no dropouts.

Key findings

01No dropouts occurred in either treatment group.

02There was no significant treatment effect for the outcomes considered.

03A time by treatment effect appeared only for the Facial Disability Index physical function subscale, with a significant increase in the in-person group.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study enrolled only 16 participants and had no a priori sample size calculation, so it is underpowered. Allocation was not random; participants were assigned based on ability to attend in-person sessions. There was no follow-up assessment, so the durability of changes is unknown. Outcomes included operator-dependent and self-reported measures, which may affect interpretation. Medication regimens were not documented, and patients had different causes of facial palsy. All participants had triple innervation surgery, so changes cannot be attributed to emotional training alone.

Declared interests

No funding source or author conflict of interest declaration is reported. Participants were not financially compensated.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that telerehabilitation emotional training caused the changes or is equivalent to in-person care. All participants had triple innervation surgery, there was no control group, allocation was not random, and the study had only 16 participants with no follow-up.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →