-
Annals of Internal Medicine Nov 2014Osteoporosis is a major contributor to the propensity to fracture among older adults, and various pharmaceuticals are available to treat it. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Osteoporosis is a major contributor to the propensity to fracture among older adults, and various pharmaceuticals are available to treat it.
PURPOSE
To update a review about the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments used to prevent fractures in adults at risk.
DATA SOURCES
Multiple computerized databases were searched between 2 January 2005 and 4 March 2014 for English-language studies.
STUDY SELECTION
Trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews.
DATA EXTRACTION
Duplicate extraction and assessment of data about study characteristics, outcomes, and quality.
DATA SYNTHESIS
From more than 52 000 titles screened, 315 articles were included in this update. There is high-strength evidence that bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide reduce fractures compared with placebo, with relative risk reductions from 0.40 to 0.60 for vertebral fractures and 0.60 to 0.80 for nonvertebral fractures. Raloxifene has been shown in placebo-controlled trials to reduce only vertebral fractures. Since 2007, there is a newly recognized adverse event of bisphosphonate use: atypical subtrochanteric femur fracture. Gastrointestinal side effects, hot flashes, thromboembolic events, and infections vary among drugs.
LIMITATIONS
Few studies have directly compared drugs used to treat osteoporosis. Data in men are very sparse. Costs were not assessed.
CONCLUSION
Good-quality evidence supports that several medications for bone density in osteoporotic range and/or preexisting hip or vertebral fracture reduce fracture risk. Side effects vary among drugs, and the comparative effectiveness of the drugs is unclear.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and RAND Corporation.
Topics: Absorptiometry, Photon; Adult; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Denosumab; Female; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Male; Neoplasms; Osteoporosis; Osteoporotic Fractures; Teriparatide
PubMed: 25199883
DOI: 10.7326/M14-0317 -
The British Journal of Oral &... Dec 2021The treatment of traumatic mandibular fractures constitutes a significant part of the oral and maxillofacial trauma service's workload. There are potential variations in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The treatment of traumatic mandibular fractures constitutes a significant part of the oral and maxillofacial trauma service's workload. There are potential variations in how they are managed. Patients are often admitted and given intravenous antibiotics prior to their definitive treatment. The evidence behind this is inconclusive. We performed a systematic review as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance/ PROSPERO Registered (CRD:42020201398) on the use of antibiotics in the management of mandibular fractures. We identified studies using a search algorithm within the OVID Gateway (including MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane Collaborative). Studies analysing the possible impact of prophylactic antibiotics on traumatic mandibular fractures were eligible. The primary outcome was surgical site infection requiring any treatment beyond the normal postoperative protocol. Secondary outcomes included any complication requiring further intervention. From the 16 studies identified (3,285 patients), seven were randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and nine were retrospective observational studies. We have identified significant between-study variation in choice of antibiotic regimen (timing, dosage, duration) and in reporting both primary and secondary outcomes. There was significant between-study heterogeneity (p = 0.02, I = 69%) and none of the assessed interventions was found to be superior. The evidence behind the use of prophylactic antibiotics in mandibular fractures is weak. A properly designed and powered RCT is needed, in order to standardise practice for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Humans; Mandibular Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retrospective Studies; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 34711441
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.01.018 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2017Factors associated with the diagnosis, aetiology, and treatment of mandibular fractures occurring during the postoperative period following the removal of a lower third... (Review)
Review
Factors associated with the diagnosis, aetiology, and treatment of mandibular fractures occurring during the postoperative period following the removal of a lower third molar are discussed. The following databases were searched using specific key words: PubMed/MEDLINE, LILACS, Embase, and Scopus. The search yielded 124 cases. Sex, age, side, tooth position and angulation, bone impaction, relationship between the tooth and the inferior alveolar nerve, local pathological conditions, aetiology of the fracture, symptomatology, and time between surgery and fracture, as well as any displacement of the fracture and the treatment of the fracture, were evaluated. Data were tabulated and the χ statistical test was applied (P<0.05). Male patients aged >35 years, with teeth in positions II/III and B/C, complete bony impaction, and local bone-like alterations, were found to have a higher frequency of fracture and pericoronitis (P<0.05). Late fractures generally occurred between the second and fourth postoperative weeks (P<0.05). They were generally not displaced and the typical treatment was the non-surgical approach (P<0.05). It is concluded that the risk of mandibular fracture after extraction is associated with excessive ostectomy and/or local alterations. At-risk patients should be thoroughly briefed on the importance of a proper postoperative diet.
Topics: Fracture Fixation; Humans; Mandibular Fractures; Molar, Third; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 27688170
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2016.09.003 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017The prevalence and incidence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The prevalence and incidence of pain and skeletal complications of metastatic bone disease such as pathologic fractures, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia is high and an important contributor to morbidity, poor performance status and decreased quality of life. Moreover, pathologic fractures are associated with increased risk of death in people with disseminated malignancies. Therefore, prevention of pain and fractures are important goals in men with prostate cancer at risk for skeletal complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified studies by electronic search of bibliographic databases including the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE on 13 July 2017 and trial registries. We handsearched the Proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology (to July 2017) and reference lists of all eligible trials identified. This is an update of a review last published in 2006.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled studies comparing the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of trials. We defined the proportion of participants with pain response as the primary end point; secondary outcomes were skeletal-related events, mortality, quality of life, adverse events, analgesic consumption and disease progression. We assessed the quality of the evidence for the main outcomes using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 trials reporting on 4843 participants comparing the effect of bisphosphonate administration to control regimens.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
there was no clear difference in the proportion of participants with pain response (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.43; P = 0.20; I = 0%; 3 trials; 876 participants; low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in a pain response in 40 more participants per 1000 (19 fewer to 114 more).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
bisphosphonates probably reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events in participants with prostate cancer metastatic to bone (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.94; P = 0.27; I = 19%; 9 trials; 3153 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 58 fewer SREs per 1000 (85 fewer to 27 fewer).We found no clinically relevant differences in mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.04; P = 0.43; I = 1%; 9 trials; 2450 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 16 fewer deaths per 1000 (47 fewer to 21 more).Outcome definition of quality of life and the measurement tools varied greatly across trials and we were unable to extract any quantitative data for meta-analysis.Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of participants affected by nausea (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; P = 0.05; I = 0%; 9 trials; 3008 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases of nausea per 1000 (0 fewer to 14 more). Bisphosphonates probably increased the number of renal adverse events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.46; P = 0.01; I = 0%; 7 trials; 1794 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 22 more renal adverse events per 1000 (4 more to 50 more). We found no clear difference in the number of participants with osteonecrosis of the jaw between groups (RR 1.92, 95% CI 0.75 to 4.90; P = 0.17; I = 0%; 5 trials; 1626 participants; very low quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in seven more cases with osteonecrosis of the jaw per 1000 (2 fewer to 29 more). We observed no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of participants with decreased analgesic consumption (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.63; P = 0.28; I = 37%; 4 trials; 416 participants). Statistical analysis revealed that bisphosphonates probably reduced the number of participants with disease progression (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98; P = 0.006; I = 0%; 7 trials; 2115 participants; moderate quality evidence). In absolute terms, bisphosphonates resulted in 36 fewer cases of disease progression per 1000 (71 fewer to 7 fewer).Findings of our predefined subgroup and sensitivity analyses were no different from those of the primary analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on low quality evidence, there may be no clinically relevant difference in the proportion of men with pain response between bisphosphonates and control regimens in men with bone metastases from prostate cancer. Bisphosphonates probably decrease the number of skeletal-related events and disease progression. These benefits need to be weighed against the increased risk of renal impairment and nausea in men receiving bisphosphonates. Future studies should explicitly evaluate patient important outcomes such as quality of life and pain by using standardized and comparable assessment tools.
Topics: Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Diphosphonates; Humans; Kidney; Male; Nausea; Pain; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29278410
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006250.pub2 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Jul 2017Third molars (M3s) have been hypothesized to be associated with the risk of mandibular angle fracture and mandibular condylar fracture. The authors systematically... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Third molars (M3s) have been hypothesized to be associated with the risk of mandibular angle fracture and mandibular condylar fracture. The authors systematically estimated the relative risk (RR) of M3 status for the development of mandibular angle fracture and mandibular condylar fracture through a meta-analysis of cohort studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this systematic review, the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to October 2016. The predictor of risk was the presence or absence of M3s. The primary outcome was the RR of mandibular angle or condylar fracture. A fixed- or a random-effects model was applied to evaluate the pooled risk estimates. Sensitivity analysis also was performed to identify the potential sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by the Begg and Egger tests.
RESULTS
Overall, 13 retrospective cohort studies were included. Of these, 13 reported the association between M3s and mandibular angle fracture, and 5 reported the association with mandibular condylar fracture. Patients with M3s had an increased risk of mandibular angle fractures (RR = 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.15-3.21) but a decreased risk of mandibular condylar fractures (RR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.25-0.86). Substantial heterogeneity in the risk estimates was found. No evidence of publication bias was found.
CONCLUSION
The present meta-analysis provides further evidence associating the presence of M3s with an increased risk of mandibular angle fractures and a simultaneously decreased risk of mandibular condylar fracture. Because of potentially more serious complications associated with condylar fracture, clinicians should carefully consider the decision to remove M3s to decrease the risk of mandibular angle fracture.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Mandibular Fractures; Molar, Third; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 28412268
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.03.021 -
Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive &... May 2024Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods.
METHODS
A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types. Conventional Erich arch bars were compared to hybrid arch bars, MMF screws, and eyelet interdental wiring. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a statistical significance of P < 0.05.
RESULTS
Among the 4234 articles identified, 24 were included, and 17 were meta-analyzed. Time to achieve MMF (-43.38 min; 95% CI, -58.20 to -28.56; P < 0.001), total operative time (-30.33 min; 95% CI, -61.05 to 0.39; P = 0.05), incidence of wire puncture injuries and glove perforations (0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.30; P < 0.001), and incidence of poor oral hygiene (0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P < 0.001) were lower for alternative MMF interventions compared to those of the conventional Erich arch bars.
CONCLUSIONS
Alternative MMF methods required shorter operative time to achieve MMF and demonstrated other increased efficiencies of practice such as shorter total operative time and decreased glove perforations, when compared to conventional Erich arch bars. If a patient is a candidate for MMF, the presented alternative MMF techniques should be considered depending on the clinical context and availability of institutional resources.
Topics: Humans; Postoperative Complications; Jaw Fixation Techniques; Mandibular Fractures; Treatment Outcome; Operative Time
PubMed: 38520780
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.02.075 -
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Oct 2018The study proposed to determine the superiority between different fixation methods in the mandibular angle fractures (MAFs) and to evaluate best option for surgeon and...
PURPOSE
The study proposed to determine the superiority between different fixation methods in the mandibular angle fractures (MAFs) and to evaluate best option for surgeon and patient.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, examining Medline-Ovid, Embase, and Pubmed databases. The quality of studies was assessed, and the odds risk (OR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was assessed to measure the effect size. Subgroup analyses by different fracture regions and different miniplate sizes were performed. Publication bias was measured by a funnel plot.
RESULTS
Twenty-one articles were enrolled in this review: 8 randomized controlled trials , 2 controlled clinical trials, and 11 retrospective studies. There were significant advantages for 3-dimensional (3D) miniplate (OR = 0.48, P = 0.003, 95% CI, 0.35-0.67) and 1 miniplate (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.58, P < 0.00001). The cumulative OR for locking miniplate was 0.45, showing that the utilizing of locking mini-plate in management of MAFs decreases postoperative complications risk by 55% over the use of nonlocking mini-plate.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this review indicated that the use of 3D miniplate, locking plate, and 1 plate were more advanced to 2 miniplates technique in low incidence of postoperative complications in the treatment of MAFs.
Topics: Bone Plates; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Mandibular Fractures; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 29561495
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004568 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Sep 2023Fractures of the mandibular condyle are the most common jaw fractures. There are several treatment approaches. There is the non-surgical and surgical approach. The... (Review)
Review
Conservative treatment of temporomandibular joint condylar fractures: A systematic review conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
OBJECTIVE
Fractures of the mandibular condyle are the most common jaw fractures. There are several treatment approaches. There is the non-surgical and surgical approach. The purpose of this systematic literature review is to evaluate the indications and contraindications of either method to help the clinician make the best treatment choice.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science and Lilacs were systematically searched until 20 May 2023. Clinical trials were selected to compare the two treatments for condyle fracture and evaluate indications and contraindications.
RESULTS
Out of 2515 papers, four studies were included. The surgical approach allows faster functional recovery and decreases patient discomfort. The study analyses under what circumstances a surgical procedure is more practical than a non-surgical one.
CONCLUSION
There is no evidence regarding the reliability of either method. Both have superimposable results. However, age, type of occlusion and other factors direct the clinician towards a surgical choice.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Conservative Treatment; Reproducibility of Results; Mandibular Fractures; Mandibular Condyle; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Temporomandibular Joint
PubMed: 37191365
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13497 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... May 2023The aim of this study is to review the current literature on treatment of subcondylar fractures using traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), closed... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study is to review the current literature on treatment of subcondylar fractures using traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), and endoscopic open approaches.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.
REVIEW METHODS
A comprehensive database search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All English-only texts published in the last 20 years with ≥10 patients were included. Studies that included patients <16 years old were excluded.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies met the final inclusion criteria. Nine studies compared ORIF with closed reduction using MMF, 12 studies evaluated ORIF via different approaches, and 10 studies evaluated outcomes after endoscopic approaches. Five studies reported significant improvement in mouth opening with ORIF compared to closed reduction. In 1 study that recorded patient-reported outcomes measure (FACE-Q scale), quality of life scores and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in the ORIF group. Among the 10 studies that used the endoscopic approach, transient facial nerve injury ranged from 0% to 10%.
CONCLUSION
Several studies report better mouth opening, dental occlusion, and functional outcomes after ORIF compared to closed reduction, while some found no significant difference. Endoscopic approaches provide ease of access to the condyle with a low incidence of facial nerve injury. However, limitations include special equipment, longer operative times, and a steep learning curve using an endoscope. This review provides surgeons with an overview of the current literature on subcondylar fractures to allow for an individualized management approach for each patient.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Treatment Outcome; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Mandibular Fractures; Facial Nerve Injuries; Quality of Life; Mandibular Condyle
PubMed: 36939481
DOI: 10.1002/ohn.185 -
Osteoporosis International : a Journal... Sep 2019Given the widespread practice of recommending drug holidays, we reviewed the impact of medication discontinuation of two common anti-osteoporosis therapies...
UNLABELLED
Given the widespread practice of recommending drug holidays, we reviewed the impact of medication discontinuation of two common anti-osteoporosis therapies (bisphosphonates and denosumab). Trial evidence suggests the risk of new clinical fractures, and vertebral fracture increases when osteoporosis treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab is stopped.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper was to review the available literature to assess what evidence exists to inform clinical decision-making with regard to drug holidays following treatment with bisphosphonates (BiP) or denosumab.
METHODS
Systematic review.
RESULTS
Differing pharmacokinetics lead to varying outcomes on stopping therapy. Prospective and retrospective analyses report that the risk of new clinical fractures was 20-40% higher in subjects who stopped BiP treatment, and vertebral fracture risk was approximately doubled. Rapid bone loss has been well described following denosumab discontinuation with an incidence of multiple vertebral fractures around 5%. Studies have not identified risk factors for fracture after stopping treatment other than those that provide an indication for treatment (e.g. prior fracture and low BMD). Studies that considered long-term continuation did not identify increased fracture risk, and reported only very low rates of adverse skeletal events such as atypical femoral fracture.
CONCLUSIONS
The view that patients on long-term treatment with bisphosphonates or denosumab should always be offered a drug holiday is not supported by the existing evidence. Different pharmacokinetic properties for different therapies require different strategies to manage drug intermission. In contrast, long-term treatment with anti-resorptives is not associated with increased risk of fragility fractures and skeletal adverse events remain rare.
Topics: Age Factors; Bisphosphonate-Associated Osteonecrosis of the Jaw; Bone Density; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Clinical Decision-Making; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Drug Administration Schedule; Humans; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Osteoporotic Fractures; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 31175404
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-019-05002-w