-
Cureus Jun 2023Adults can accidentally swallow foreign bodies (FBs) with food. In rare occasions, these can lodge in the appendix lumen causing inflammation. This is known as foreign... (Review)
Review
Adults can accidentally swallow foreign bodies (FBs) with food. In rare occasions, these can lodge in the appendix lumen causing inflammation. This is known as foreign body appendicitis. We conducted this study to review different types and management of appendiceal FBs. A comprehensive search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was performed to detect appropriate case reports for this review. Case reports eligible for this review included patients above 18 years of age with all types of FB ingestion causing appendicitis. A total of 64 case reports were deemed to be eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. The patient mean age was 44.3 ± 16.7 years (range, 18-77). Twenty-four foreign bodies were identified in the adult appendix. They were mainly lead shot pellet, fishbone, dental crown or filling, toothpick, and others. Forty-two percent of the included patients presented with classic appendicitis pain, while 17% were asymptomatic. Moreover, the appendix was perforated in 11 patients. Regarding modalities used for diagnosis, computed tomography (CT) scans confirmed the presence of FBs in 59% of cases while X-ray only managed to detect 30%. Almost all of the cases (91%) were treated surgically with appendicectomy and only six were managed conservatively. Overall, lead shot pellets were the most common foreign body found. Fishbone and toothpick accounted for most of the perforated appendix cases. This study concludes that prophylactic appendicectomy is recommended for the management of foreign bodies detected in the appendix, even if the patient is asymptomatic.
PubMed: 37425596
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40133 -
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Jun 2024The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes of dental implants in users of antihypertensive medication with those of nonusers. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes of dental implants in users of antihypertensive medication with those of nonusers.
METHODS
This systematic review followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews under the number CRD42022319336. The electronic databases Medline (PubMed) and Central Cochrane were searched for relevant scientific literature published in English through May 2022. The focused question was, "Do patients taking antihypertensive medications have a similar impact on the clinical outcome and survival of dental implants compared with nonusers?".
RESULTS
A total of 49 articles were found, of which 3 articles were finally selected for a qualitative synthesis. The three studies included 959 patients. In all three studies, the commonly used medication was renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors. Two studies mentioned implant survival rate, which was 99.4% in antihypertensive medication users and 96.1% in the nonusers. One study found a higher implant stability quotient (ISQ) in patients taking antihypertensive medication (75.7 ± 5.9) compared with patients not taking antihypertensive medication (73.7 ± 8.1).
CONCLUSIONS
The limited available evidence showed that patient taking antihypertensive medications had comparable success rate and implant stability to patients not taking medications. The studies included patients taking different antihypertensive medications, so a drug-specific conclusion regarding the clinical outcome of dental implants is not possible. Further studies are needed, including patients taking certain antihypertensive medications, to determine their effects on dental implants.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Dental Implants; Hypertension; Dental Restoration Failure; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37330427
DOI: 10.1007/s10006-023-01167-1 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2023Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the implant level and 24% at the patient level. The benefits of adjuvant metronidazole are controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs according to PRISMA and PICOS was performed with an electronic search over the last 10 years in MEDLINE (PubMed), WOS, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the methodological quality using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan version 5.4.1, based on mean difference and standard deviation, with 95% confidence intervals; the random-effects model was selected, and the threshold for statistical significance was defined as < 0.05. A total of 38 studies were collected and five were selected. Finally, one of the studies was eliminated because of unanalyzable results. All studies reached a high methodological quality. A total of 289 patients were studied with follow-up periods from 2 weeks to 1 year. Statistical significance was only found, with respect to the use of adjunctive metronidazole, in the pooled analysis of the studies ( = 0.02) and in the analysis of the radiographic values reported on peri-implant marginal bone levels, in the studies with a 3-month follow-up ( = 0.03). Discrepancies in the use of systemic metronidazole require long-term randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the role of antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Metronidazole; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Combined Modality Therapy; Bias
PubMed: 37287463
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2023.1149055 -
Journal of Stomatology, Oral and... Dec 2023Dental implants are a common solution for edentulous patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether locally delivered diphosphonates... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Dental implants are a common solution for edentulous patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether locally delivered diphosphonates influence the osseointegration of dental implants in humans.
MATERIAL & METHODS
In March 2023, we conducted an electronic systematic literature search using three databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science). We included randomized trials documenting locally delivered diphosphonates in partly edentulous patients. Two independent reviewers evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality.
RESULTS
We have identified 752 studies, out of which 7 studies involving 154 patients met the inclusion criteria. The overall meta-analysis indicates that diphosphonates are associated with marginal bone loss during the pre-loading period (mean difference (MD) of -0.18 mm, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.12, p<0.00001; I²=83%), marginal bone loss after one year (MD -0.35 mm, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.14, p = 0.0009; I²=14%), and five years loading (MD -0.34 mm, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.13, p = 0.002; I²=0%). However, the drug did not seem to affect the implant survival rate (risk ratios (RR) of 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.08, P = 0.33; I²=9%).
DISCUSSION
This study suggests that local use of diphosphonates does not affect implant survival, but it does reduce marginal bone loss and improve the osseointegration of dental implants in humans. However, future research must be more standardized and address methodological biases to draw more conclusive findings.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Diphosphonates; Dental Restoration Failure; Osseointegration; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 37276968
DOI: 10.1016/j.jormas.2023.101521 -
Otology & Neurotology : Official... Jul 2023To review otology-related studies using the US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database to identify the...
OBJECTIVE
To review otology-related studies using the US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database to identify the opportunities and limitations of using MAUDE.
DATABASES REVIEWED
PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMBASE.
METHODS
All studies reporting otology-related adverse events extracted from MAUDE were included from June 20, 2002, to 2022. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, selected articles for exclusion, extracted data, and appraised studies. Critical appraisal was done according to the National Institutes of Health quality assessment tool for case series.
RESULTS
The search yielded 5,645 studies, of which 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. All eight studies were case series; three evaluated cochlear implants, two evaluated osseointegrated hearing implants, and one evaluated illuminated operating microscope use. Quality assessment revealed all studies to be of poor quality. The most common domains contributing to these ratings included unclear study population, lack of consecutive participants, comparability of participants, clear and consistent outcome measures, and appropriate statistical analysis.
CONCLUSION
Otology studies using the MAUDE database are of poor quality. This was primarily due to MAUDE's structural limitations as a passive surveillance system using nonstandardized free-text reports. The quality of studies also suffered from inappropriate analysis of MAUDE data, given its design. The utility of MAUDE could be improved by implementing case report best practices and converting the free fields to allow controlled and adaptive responses wherever possible to help standardize adverse event reporting.
Topics: United States; Humans; United States Food and Drug Administration; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37254239
DOI: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003899 -
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma... Sep 2023Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a destructive complication of knee replacement surgery (KR). In two-stage revision a spacer is required to maintain limb length and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a destructive complication of knee replacement surgery (KR). In two-stage revision a spacer is required to maintain limb length and alignment and provide a stable limb on which to mobilise. Spacers may be articulating or static with the gold standard spacer yet to be defined. The aims of this scoping review were to summarise the types of static spacer used to treat PJI after KR, their indications for use and early complication rates.
METHODS
We conducted a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's "JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis" Scoping review reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2005 to 2022 for studies on the use of static spacers for PJI after KR.
RESULTS
41 studies (1230 patients/knees) were identified describing 42 static spacer constructs. Twenty-three (23/42 [54.2%]) incorporated cement augmented with metalwork, while nineteen (19/42, [45.9%]) were made of cement alone. Spacers were most frequently anchored in the diaphysis (22/42, [53.3%]), particularly in the setting of extensive bone loss (mean AORI Type = F3/T3; 11/15 studies 78.3% diaphyseal anchoring). 7.1% (79 of 1117 knees) of static spacers had a complication requiring further surgery prior to planned second stage with the most common complication being infection (86.1%).
CONCLUSIONS
This study has summarised the large variety in static spacer constructs used for staged revision KR for PJI. Static spacers were associated with a high risk of complications and further work in this area is required to improve the quality of care in this vulnerable group.
Topics: Humans; Treatment Outcome; Reoperation; Knee Joint; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Prostheses and Implants; Arthritis, Infectious; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Knee Prosthesis; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37160445
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-023-04893-z -
Annals of Plastic Surgery May 2023This systematic review evaluates all published studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), to determine which category...
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review evaluates all published studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR), to determine which category of mesh produces the most favorable outcomes.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally. Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently the most popular method of postmastectomy reconstruction, and recently, the use of surgical mesh in IBBR has become commonplace. Although there is a long-standing belief among surgeons that biologic mesh is superior to synthetic mesh in terms of surgical complications and patient outcomes, few studies exist to support this claim.
METHODS
A systematic search of the EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases was performed in January 2022. Primary literature studies comparing biologic and synthetic meshes within the same experimental framework were included. Study quality and bias were assessed using the validated Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria.
RESULTS
After duplicate removal, 109 publications were reviewed, with 12 meeting the predetermined inclusion criteria. Outcomes included common surgical complications, histological analysis, interactions with oncologic therapies, quality of life measures, and esthetic outcomes. Across all 12 studies, synthetic meshes were rated as at least equivalent to biologic meshes for every reported outcome. On average, the studies in this review tended to have moderate Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scores.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review offers the first comprehensive evaluation of all publications comparing biologic and synthetic meshes in IBBR. The consistent finding that synthetic meshes are at least equivalent to biologic meshes across a range of clinical outcomes offers a compelling argument in favor of prioritizing the use of synthetic meshes in IBBR.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Quality of Life; Mastectomy; Mammaplasty; Breast Implants; Surgical Mesh; Biological Products
PubMed: 37146317
DOI: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000003512 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2023The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of patient-performed or administered adjunctive measures to non-surgical peri-implantitis therapy in terms... (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of patient-performed or administered adjunctive measures to non-surgical peri-implantitis therapy in terms of probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing (BoP) reductions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Randomized and controlled clinical trials with at least 6 months of follow-up were searched in three databases. Secondary outcomes included implant loss, disease resolution, recurrence of peri-implantitis, need of re-treatment, changes in marginal bone levels, patient-reported outcomes and adverse effects.
RESULTS
Of 567 titles, 10 publications, reporting 9 investigations, were included. Three types of adjunctive measures were found (local/systemic antimicrobials and probiotics). Four studies evaluated the effects of local antimicrobials (i.e., minocycline microspheres, chlorhexidine chips or a metronidazole + amoxicillin gel), three studies evaluated systemic antimicrobials (either amoxicillin + metronidazole or metronidazole alone) and two studies evaluated probiotics (Lactobacillus reuteri strains). The addition of local antimicrobials led to modest improvements in PD reduction. Systemic antimicrobials showed significantly greater reductions in PD and BoP, especially at initially deep sites (PD > 6 mm). Due to the large heterogeneity among included studies, no meta-analyses were performed.
CONCLUSIONS
Different adjunctive measures in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis have different impact in terms of PD and BoP reductions. Improved PD reductions result after the use of systemic antimicrobials, and to a lesser extent, after the use of local antimicrobials.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Metronidazole; Minocycline; Amoxicillin; Anti-Infective Agents; Dental Implants
PubMed: 37143407
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13821 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jul 2023Growing evidence is highlighting the inefficacy of clindamycin as an effective substitute to amoxicillin in patients self-reporting a penicillin allergy. The hypothesis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Self-reported allergy to penicillin and clindamycin administration may be risk factors for dental implant failure: A systematic review, meta-analysis and delabeling protocol.
OBJECTIVE
Growing evidence is highlighting the inefficacy of clindamycin as an effective substitute to amoxicillin in patients self-reporting a penicillin allergy. The hypothesis is that implant failure is higher in these patients, when compared to patients receiving penicillin. To test this hypothesis, a systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken and a protocol for delabeling penicillin allergic patients was presented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was undertaken by searching across three different databases, namely PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science.
RESULTS
Out of 572 results, four studies were eligible to be included. Fixed-effects meta-analysis showed a higher number of failed implants in patients who were administered clindamycin, because of a self-reported allergy to penicillin. Results showed that these patients are over three times more likely (OR = 3.30, 95% C.I. 2.58-4.22, p-value < .00001) to undergo implant failure with an average cumulative proportion of 11.0% (95% C.I. 3.5-22.0%) versus 3.8% (95% C.I. 1.2-7.7%) of patients not requiring clindamycin and administered amoxicillin. A protocol for penicillin allergy delabeling is proposed.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is still limited and based on retrospective observational studies, it is difficult to state if penicillin allergy, clindamycin administration or a combination of both is responsible for the current trends and reported findings.
Topics: Humans; Amoxicillin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Clindamycin; Dental Implants; Drug Hypersensitivity; Hypersensitivity; Penicillins; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Self Report; Clinical Protocols
PubMed: 37102260
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14073 -
Journal of Biophotonics Jul 2023Phototherapy incorporating photobiomodulation therapy and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy has been utilised as antioxidants in symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP)...
Phototherapy incorporating photobiomodulation therapy and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy has been utilised as antioxidants in symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP) management; however, its role of intervention remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review of CRD42021227788 PROSPERO (an international prospective register of systematic reviews in health and social care) registration number was to oversee and determine phototherapy efficacy in patients with symptomatic OLP, identifying and bridging the literature gaps by proposing recommendations for future studies. A search strategy was developed in consistent with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Various electronic databases were exercised to search for randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Several search engines were employed to analyse a total of 177 studies of which nine included. A wide range of utilised laser and light-emitted diode wavelengths between 630 and 808 nm and irradiance ranged between 10 and 13 mW/cm were noted. 67% of studies reported a high risk of bias and a high heterogeneity obtained from numerical data for quantitative analysis, therefore meta-analysis was impossible to conduct. Despite inconsistency and diversity in phototherapy parameters, treatment protocols, photosensitiser (type, concentration and method of application) and outcome assessment tools, the majority of the studies showed positive results compared with standard care treatments. Hence, a necessity to perform well-designed RCTs with robust methodology is warranted, after acknowledging the current drawbacks and addressing the suggested recommendations highlighted in our review. Moreover, advanced knowledge in understanding further phototherapy-antioxidants molecular mechanistic in symptomatic OLP is required.
Topics: Humans; Antioxidants; Lichen Planus, Oral; Low-Level Light Therapy; Photochemotherapy; Phototherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37017292
DOI: 10.1002/jbio.202300046