-
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb 2023The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness and Safety of Treatments to Prevent Fractures in People With Low Bone Mass or Primary Osteoporosis: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis for the American College of Physicians.
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of osteoporosis is increasing in the United States.
PURPOSE
To evaluate low bone mass and osteoporosis treatments to prevent fractures.
DATA SOURCES
Ovid MEDLINE ALL, Ovid Evidence Based Medicine Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2014 through February 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Adults receiving eligible interventions for low bone mass or osteoporosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for fracture outcomes, and RCTs and large observational studies ( ≥1000) for harms.
DATA EXTRACTION
Abstracted by 1 reviewer and verified by a second. Independent, dual assessments of risk of bias and certainty of evidence (CoE).
DATA SYNTHESIS
We included 34 RCTs (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies. Bisphosphonates and denosumab reduced hip, clinical and radiographic vertebral, and other clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis (moderate to high CoE). Bisphosphonates for 36 months or more may increase the risk for atypical femoral fractures (AFFs) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), but the absolute risks were low. Abaloparatide and teriparatide reduced clinical and radiographic vertebral fractures but increased the risk for withdrawals due to adverse events (WAEs; moderate to high CoE). Raloxifene and bazedoxifene for 36 months or more reduced radiographic vertebral but not clinical fractures (low to moderate CoE). Abaloparatide, teriparatide, and sequential romosozumab, then alendronate, may be more effective than bisphosphonates in reducing clinical fractures for 17 to 24 months in older postmenopausal females at very high fracture risk (low to moderate CoE). Bisphosphonates may reduce clinical fractures in older females with low bone mass (low CoE) and radiographic vertebral fractures in males with osteoporosis (low to moderate CoE).
LIMITATION
Few studies examined participants with low bone mass, males, or Black-identifying persons, sequential therapy, or treatment beyond 3 years.
CONCLUSION
Bisphosphonates, denosumab, abaloparatide, teriparatide, and romosozumab, followed by alendronate, reduce clinical fractures in postmenopausal females with osteoporosis. Abaloparatide and teriparatide increased WAEs; longer duration bisphosphonate use may increase AFF and ONJ risk though these events were rare.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE
American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42021236220).
Topics: Male; Adult; Female; Humans; Aged; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Teriparatide; Alendronate; Osteoporosis, Postmenopausal; Denosumab; Network Meta-Analysis; Fractures, Bone; Osteoporosis; Diphosphonates; Spinal Fractures; Physicians
PubMed: 36592455
DOI: 10.7326/M22-0684 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jan 2022There is no accepted method of reporting mandibular fracture that reflects incidence, treatment and outcome for individual cases. As most series include anatomical site...
There is no accepted method of reporting mandibular fracture that reflects incidence, treatment and outcome for individual cases. As most series include anatomical site only for all fractures, the aim was to establish a new method to report fractures based on a systematic review of the literature and an internal audit. The classification proposed is: Class I; condyle, II; angle, IIc; II+condyle, III; body/symphysis, IIIc; III+condyle, IV; multiple fractures not including condyle, IVc; IV+condyle, V; bilateral condyle±other fracture(s). A total of 10,971 adult and 914 paediatric cases were analyzed through systematic review, and 833 from the regional audit. Only 32% (14/44) of reported series could be reclassified which, when added to the audit data, showed Class IV was most common (29%), with similar proportions of Class III, Class IIIc and Class II (18-23%). External validation (literature review) in terms of treatment and outcome was non-informative, but the internal validation (audit) demonstrated an increasing requirement for adding maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) as class increased. The heterogeneity of data reporting found in the systematic review confirms the need for a classification such as this, likely to enhance comparison of varying management protocols.
Topics: Adult; Child; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Incidence; Jaw Fixation Techniques; Mandibular Condyle; Mandibular Fractures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34092451
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2021.02.012 -
Oral Oncology Mar 2022There is a wide range of commercial and custom-made devices available for the treatment of trismus (restricted jaw opening). They are used often in conjunction with a... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a wide range of commercial and custom-made devices available for the treatment of trismus (restricted jaw opening). They are used often in conjunction with a prescribed exercise program with the aim of improving maximal inter-incisal opening (MIO). This study compared the efficacy (MIO and patient reported outcome results), adverse events, consumer experience and cost of the different types of devices available.
METHODS
Four databases were searched between the years 2001-2021 using the terms 'trismus' and 'device'. Two independent authors assessed each paper for inclusion, then conducted a quality analysis.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies met the criterion required for inclusion. The majority (n = 27) were in the context of established trismus, where the remaining five used the device preventatively. The trismus device improved MIO in 23 of the rehabilitation programs (pooled mean MIO increased by 9.5 mm in the intervention arm compared to 2.4 mm for controls; p = 0.0001). Improved MIO was not observed in the prevention studies. The Therabite ® was the most common trismus device investigated and with a mean increase in MIO of 10.0 mm and cost of $499AUD. Forces applied by trismus devices were regulated by the perception of pain experienced by the patient, rather than a prescribed force by the treating health professional. Despite this guidance, several adverse events occurred (n = 8), including mandibular and molar fractures. Barriers experienced by consumers included pain, ill-fitting mouthpiece, adverse events, exercise adherence and cost.
CONCLUSION
Trismus devices which use the application of force to the jaw can improve the MIO of patients with established trismus. However, their role is unproven in the setting of trismus prevention during radiotherapy and several significant barriers such as cost, exercise adherence and safety concerns have been demonstrated for the intervention setting.
Topics: Exercise Therapy; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Pain; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Trismus
PubMed: 35104753
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2022.105728 -
The British Journal of Oral &... Jul 2020The choice of surgical or non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures remains controversial. Earlier trials documented multiple complications of surgical... (Review)
Review
The choice of surgical or non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures remains controversial. Earlier trials documented multiple complications of surgical treatment and recommended a non-surgical approach, while more recent trials have shown superior outcomes of surgical compared with non-surgical treatment in some cases. In this paper we systematically review the systematic reviews on the topic that were published before January 2019 and which followed the PRISMA statement, and propose an algorithm for the management of these fractures. Two systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria of the current review, both of which showed better outcome from surgical than non-surgical treatment. We propose an algorithm based on the feasibility of fixation, ability to restore joint and occlusal function, and ensure adequate healing, and consider patient-associated factors that facilitate decision-making.
Topics: Humans; Algorithms; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Mandibular Condyle; Mandibular Fractures; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Wound Healing
PubMed: 32245577
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2020.03.014 -
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 2023In early breast cancer (BC) the impact of denosumab on survival outcomes is still unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and...
BACKGROUND
In early breast cancer (BC) the impact of denosumab on survival outcomes is still unclear. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of adjuvant denosumab in addition to standard anticancer therapy.
METHODS
PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Embase, and oncological meetings websites were screened to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Survival outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS), bone-metastasis-free survival (BMFS), and overall survival (OS). Fracture incidence and time to first fracture were bone-health outcomes. Osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), atypical femur fractures (AFF), and other adverse events were also evaluated. Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios (RR) with respective 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were computed using a random-effects model. Exploratory subgroup analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Two phase III RCTs were included, the Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group-18 (ABCSG-18) and the D-CARE trials, for a total of 7929 patients. In the ABCSG-18 trial, denosumab was administered every 6 months during endocrine therapy (for a median of seven cycles) while the D-CARE trial used an intensive schedule for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Adjuvant denosumab showed no difference in DFS (HR: 0.932; 95% CI: 0.748-1.162), BMFS (HR: 0.9896; 95% CI: 0.751-1.070), and OS (HR: 0.917; 95% CI: 0.718-1.171) compared to placebo in the overall population. In hormone receptor positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative BC patients, a DFS (HR: 0.883; 95% CI: 0.782-0.996) and BMFS (HR: 0.832; 95% CI: 0.714-0.970) benefit was observed and BMFS was prolonged in all hormone receptor positive patients (HR: 0.850; 95% CI: 0.735-0.983). Fracture incidence (RR: 0.787; 95% CI: 0.696-0.890) and time to first fracture (HR: 0.760; 95% CI: 0.665-0.869) were also improved. No increase in overall toxicity was seen with denosumab and no differences were observed for ONJ and AFF between the 60-mg every 6-month schedule and placebo.
CONCLUSION
Denosumab addition to anticancer treatment does not improve DFS, BMFS, or OS in the overall population, although a DFS improvement was observed in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative BC patients and a BMFS improvement in all hormone receptor positive patients. Bone-health outcomes were improved with no added toxicity with the 60-mg schedule.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO identifier: CRD42022332787.
PubMed: 37284523
DOI: 10.1177/17588359231173180 -
The British Journal of Oral &... Apr 2022The mandible is the most common bone to develop complications following treatment of facial fractures. This is due to a complex interaction of both fracture specific and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The mandible is the most common bone to develop complications following treatment of facial fractures. This is due to a complex interaction of both fracture specific and patient factors. Our aim was to identify those patient factors, with a specific focus on those that may be potentially modifiable to reduce the incidence of complications. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology to identify patient factors ascribed to an increased risk of complications following the treatment of mandibular fracture. These were divided into non- modifiable and potentially modifiable factors. A meta-analysis was performed to weight those factors for which statistical analysis had been performed. Twenty-two pertinent papers were identified, of which eight described non-modifiable and seven potentially modifiable factors. The most common potentially modifiable factor identified was smoking. Meta-analysis established that tobacco smoking demonstrated an increased risk of complications in three studies (Odds Ratio: 4.04 - 8.09). Division of patient factors into those that are potentially modifiable and those that are not will enable clinicians to focus on those in which change within the immediate postoperative period can be instigated. This includes smoking cessation assistance, education as to the need for a soft diet, and facilitating postoperative clinic attendance. It also enables stratification of risk in terms of consent, and choice of treatment. Further research should use standardised terminology, particularly in stopping the use of generalisable terms such as patient compliance and instead describing its individual components.
Topics: Humans; Incidence; Mandible; Mandibular Fractures; Postoperative Complications; Risk Factors; Smoking
PubMed: 35183372
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2021.07.005 -
Systematic Reviews Mar 2023To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Screening for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care: systematic reviews of the effects and acceptability of screening and treatment, and the accuracy of risk prediction tools.
BACKGROUND
To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, we reviewed evidence on the benefits, harms, and acceptability of screening and treatment, and on the accuracy of risk prediction tools for the primary prevention of fragility fractures among adults aged 40 years and older in primary care.
METHODS
For screening effectiveness, accuracy of risk prediction tools, and treatment benefits, our search methods involved integrating studies published up to 2016 from an existing systematic review. Then, to locate more recent studies and any evidence relating to acceptability and treatment harms, we searched online databases (2016 to April 4, 2022 [screening] or to June 1, 2021 [predictive accuracy]; 1995 to June 1, 2021, for acceptability; 2016 to March 2, 2020, for treatment benefits; 2015 to June 24, 2020, for treatment harms), trial registries and gray literature, and hand-searched reviews, guidelines, and the included studies. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted results, and appraised risk of bias, with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The overview of reviews on treatment harms relied on one reviewer, with verification of data by another reviewer to correct errors and omissions. When appropriate, study results were pooled using random effects meta-analysis; otherwise, findings were described narratively. Evidence certainty was rated according to the GRADE approach.
RESULTS
We included 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 controlled clinical trial (CCT) for the benefits and harms of screening, 1 RCT for comparative benefits and harms of different screening strategies, 32 validation cohort studies for the calibration of risk prediction tools (26 of these reporting on the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool without [i.e., clinical FRAX], or with the inclusion of bone mineral density (BMD) results [i.e., FRAX + BMD]), 27 RCTs for the benefits of treatment, 10 systematic reviews for the harms of treatment, and 12 studies for the acceptability of screening or initiating treatment. In females aged 65 years and older who are willing to independently complete a mailed fracture risk questionnaire (referred to as "selected population"), 2-step screening using a risk assessment tool with or without measurement of BMD probably (moderate certainty) reduces the risk of hip fractures (3 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 43,736, absolute risk reduction [ARD] = 6.2 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 9.0-2.8 fewer, number needed to screen [NNS] = 161) and clinical fragility fractures (3 RCTs, n = 42,009, ARD = 5.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 10.9-0.8 fewer, NNS = 169). It probably does not reduce all-cause mortality (2 RCTs and 1 CCT, n = 26,511, ARD = no difference in 1000, 95% CI 7.1 fewer to 5.3 more) and may (low certainty) not affect health-related quality of life. Benefits for fracture outcomes were not replicated in an offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. For females aged 68-80 years, population screening may not reduce the risk of hip fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 0.3 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.2 fewer to 3.9 more) or clinical fragility fractures (1 RCT, n = 34,229, ARD = 1.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 8.0 fewer to 6.0 more) over 5 years of follow-up. The evidence for serious adverse events among all patients and for all outcomes among males and younger females (<65 years) is very uncertain. We defined overdiagnosis as the identification of high risk in individuals who, if not screened, would never have known that they were at risk and would never have experienced a fragility fracture. This was not directly reported in any of the trials. Estimates using data available in the trials suggest that among "selected" females offered screening, 12% of those meeting age-specific treatment thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk, and 19% of those meeting thresholds based on clinical FRAX 10-year major osteoporotic fracture risk, may be overdiagnosed as being at high risk of fracture. Of those identified as being at high clinical FRAX 10-year hip fracture risk and who were referred for BMD assessment, 24% may be overdiagnosed. One RCT (n = 9268) provided evidence comparing 1-step to 2-step screening among postmenopausal females, but the evidence from this trial was very uncertain. For the calibration of risk prediction tools, evidence from three Canadian studies (n = 67,611) without serious risk of bias concerns indicates that clinical FRAX-Canada may be well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of hip fractures (observed-to-expected fracture ratio [O:E] = 1.13, 95% CI 0.74-1.72, I = 89.2%), and is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures (O:E = 1.10, 95% CI 1.01-1.20, I = 50.4%), both leading to some underestimation of the observed risk. Data from these same studies (n = 61,156) showed that FRAX-Canada with BMD may perform poorly to estimate 10-year hip fracture risk (O:E = 1.31, 95% CI 0.91-2.13, I = 92.7%), but is probably well calibrated for the 10-year prediction of clinical fragility fractures, with some underestimation of the observed risk (O:E 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.20, I = 0%). The Canadian Association of Radiologists and Osteoporosis Canada Risk Assessment (CAROC) tool may be well calibrated to predict a category of risk for 10-year clinical fractures (low, moderate, or high risk; 1 study, n = 34,060). The evidence for most other tools was limited, or in the case of FRAX tools calibrated for countries other than Canada, very uncertain due to serious risk of bias concerns and large inconsistency in findings across studies. Postmenopausal females in a primary prevention population defined as <50% prevalence of prior fragility fracture (median 16.9%, range 0 to 48% when reported in the trials) and at risk of fragility fracture, treatment with bisphosphonates as a class (median 2 years, range 1-6 years) probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (19 RCTs, n = 22,482, ARD = 11.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 15.0-6.6 fewer, [number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome] NNT = 90), and may reduce the risk of hip fractures (14 RCTs, n = 21,038, ARD = 2.9 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 4.6-0.9 fewer, NNT = 345) and clinical vertebral fractures (11 RCTs, n = 8921, ARD = 10.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 14.0-3.9 fewer, NNT = 100); it may not reduce all-cause mortality. There is low certainty evidence of little-to-no reduction in hip fractures with any individual bisphosphonate, but all provided evidence of decreased risk of clinical fragility fractures (moderate certainty for alendronate [NNT=68] and zoledronic acid [NNT=50], low certainty for risedronate [NNT=128]) among postmenopausal females. Evidence for an impact on risk of clinical vertebral fractures is very uncertain for alendronate and risedronate; zoledronic acid may reduce the risk of this outcome (4 RCTs, n = 2367, ARD = 18.7 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 25.6-6.6 fewer, NNT = 54) for postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably reduces the risk of clinical fragility fractures (6 RCTs, n = 9473, ARD = 9.1 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 12.1-5.6 fewer, NNT = 110) and clinical vertebral fractures (4 RCTs, n = 8639, ARD = 16.0 fewer in 1000, 95% CI 18.6-12.1 fewer, NNT=62), but may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip fractures among postmenopausal females. Denosumab probably makes little-to-no difference in the risk of all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life among postmenopausal females. Evidence in males is limited to two trials (1 zoledronic acid, 1 denosumab); in this population, zoledronic acid may make little-to-no difference in the risk of hip or clinical fragility fractures, and evidence for all-cause mortality is very uncertain. The evidence for treatment with denosumab in males is very uncertain for all fracture outcomes (hip, clinical fragility, clinical vertebral) and all-cause mortality. There is moderate certainty evidence that treatment causes a small number of patients to experience a non-serious adverse event, notably non-serious gastrointestinal events (e.g., abdominal pain, reflux) with alendronate (50 RCTs, n = 22,549, ARD = 16.3 more in 1000, 95% CI 2.4-31.3 more, [number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome] NNH = 61) but not with risedronate; influenza-like symptoms with zoledronic acid (5 RCTs, n = 10,695, ARD = 142.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 105.5-188.5 more, NNH = 7); and non-serious gastrointestinal adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 64.5 more in 1000, 95% CI 26.4-13.3 more, NNH = 16), dermatologic adverse events (3 RCTs, n = 8454, ARD = 15.6 more in 1000, 95% CI 7.6-27.0 more, NNH = 64), and infections (any severity; 4 RCTs, n = 8691, ARD = 1.8 more in 1000, 95% CI 0.1-4.0 more, NNH = 556) with denosumab. For serious adverse events overall and specific to stroke and myocardial infarction, treatment with bisphosphonates probably makes little-to-no difference; evidence for other specific serious harms was less certain or not available. There was low certainty evidence for an increased risk for the rare occurrence of atypical femoral fractures (0.06 to 0.08 more in 1000) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (0.22 more in 1000) with bisphosphonates (most evidence for alendronate). The evidence for these rare outcomes and for rebound fractures with denosumab was very uncertain. Younger (lower risk) females have high willingness to be screened. A minority of postmenopausal females at increased risk for fracture may accept treatment. Further, there is large heterogeneity in the level of risk at which patients may be accepting of initiating treatment, and treatment effects appear to be overestimated.
CONCLUSION
An offer of 2-step screening with risk assessment and BMD measurement to selected postmenopausal females with low prevalence of prior fracture probably results in a small reduction in the risk of clinical fragility fracture and hip fracture compared to no screening. These findings were most applicable to the use of clinical FRAX for risk assessment and were not replicated in the offer-to-screen population where the rate of response to mailed screening questionnaires was low. Limited direct evidence on harms of screening were available; using study data to provide estimates, there may be a moderate degree of overdiagnosis of high risk for fracture to consider. The evidence for younger females and males is very limited. The benefits of screening and treatment need to be weighed against the potential for harm; patient views on the acceptability of treatment are highly variable.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42019123767.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Alendronate; Canada; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Hip Fractures; Osteoporotic Fractures; Primary Health Care; Primary Prevention; Risedronic Acid; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 36945065
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02181-w -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Mar 2022Bone grafts have been applied for many years in orthopedic surgery to assist with bone repair for defects or bone discontinuity caused by trauma and tumors as well as...
BACKGROUND
Bone grafts have been applied for many years in orthopedic surgery to assist with bone repair for defects or bone discontinuity caused by trauma and tumors as well as periodontal defects. Jaw cysts are another common benign disease of the maxillofacial region which may lead to pathological bone fracture, loss of teeth, and infection. However, whether bone grafts are beneficial for bone regeneration in jaw cystic lesions and when bone grafts should be used remains unclear.
AIM
To study the efficacy of bone grafts compared to spontaneous healing in the treatment of jaw cystic lesions.
METHODS
A literature search was performed in Medline, Cochrane Library and Embase to identify related articles published in English in the last ten years. The following key words and MeSH terms were used: "jaw cyst", "cystic lesion", "odontogenic cyst", "periapical cyst", "dentigerous cyst", "follicular cyst", "keratocyst", "treatment", "surgery", "bone graft", "enucleation", "cystectomy", and "bone regeneration". Case reports, clinical trials, clinical studies, observational studies and randomized controlled trials were included. Study quality was evaluated.
RESULTS
Ten studies ( = 10) met the inclusion criteria. Five studies reported spontaneous bone healing after enucleation, three studies investigated the efficacy of various bone grafts, and two randomized comparative studies focused on the comparison between spontaneous healing and bone grafting. Over 90% of bone regeneration occurred within 6 mo after bone grafting. The bone regeneration rate after cystectomy showed great variation, ranging from 50% to 100% after 6 mo, but reaching over 90% after 12 mo.
CONCLUSION
While the long-term superiority of bone grafting compared with spontaneous healing after cystectomy is unclear, bone grafts accelerate the process of healing and significantly increase bone quality.
PubMed: 35434117
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i9.2801 -
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... May 2023The recent trend favors the open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures to prevent long-term consequences. Nonendoscopic intraoral approach is an option... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The recent trend favors the open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures to prevent long-term consequences. Nonendoscopic intraoral approach is an option for management without a visible scar. The purpose of this systematic review was to explore the evidence, armamentarium, methods of reduction and fixation, challenges, and complications.
STUDY DESIGN
We have systematically reviewed published articles on the intraoral approach for condylar fracture management following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane library database, to find relevant articles from January 1980 to March 2022. Descriptive statistics were applied to obtain the results.
RESULTS
Finally, 23 studies were included. The incision described for the intraoral approach was similar to sagittal split osteotomy in all studies. A wide array of specialized instruments, methods, and challenges has been outlined for visualization, reduction, and fixation. The incidence of complications in the entire review was 23% (72/306).
CONCLUSION
The challenges encountered in the nonendoscopic intraoral approach for condylar fracture management can be negated with the use of specialized instruments and with experience. However, further research is warranted for a specialized set of miniature instruments to ease the procedure, make it time-efficient and optimize hardware selection.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Mandibular Fractures; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Osteotomy
PubMed: 36257907
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2022.09.003 -
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... Nov 2023Surgical innovation led to an endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach for managing condyle fractures. The purpose of this systematic review is to purview the role of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Surgical innovation led to an endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach for managing condyle fractures. The purpose of this systematic review is to purview the role of the endoscope and determine the range of information, summarizing the evidence for the benefit of surgeons on an endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach.
STUDY DESIGN
A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases for studies mentioning the endoscopic intraoral approach for managing mandibular condylar fractures. Outcomes include the role of the endoscope, challenges, adjunct armamentarium, duration, and complications associated with the transoral and transbuccal approach for screw fixation. The meta-analysis was conducted with prevalence estimates and standardized means using STATA.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine studies were included. A 30° angulated, 4-mm-thick endoscope was the most commonly used endoscope. Two mini plates were most commonly used for fixation. Facial nerve weakness was higher in the transbuccal approach (1.24%) than in the transoral approach (0.8%). Pooled analysis (6 studies) showed that the duration of the surgical procedure was less in the transoral approach compared with the transbuccal approach for screw fixation. The bailout was 1.49%.
CONCLUSIONS
The endoscopic-assisted intraoral approach is reliable for condylar fracture management. The transoral and transbuccal approaches can be used for screw fixation with comparable outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Condyle; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Endoscopy; Mandibular Fractures; Bone Screws; Treatment Outcome; Bone Plates
PubMed: 37635009
DOI: 10.1016/j.oooo.2023.04.013