-
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity and are used in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). While bisphosphonates are shown to be effective in reducing vertebral fractures and pain, their role in improving overall survival (OS) remains unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002 and previously updated in 2010 and 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence related to benefits and harms associated with use of various types of bisphosphonates (aminobisphosphonates versus non-aminobisphosphonates) in the management of patients with MM. Our primary objective was to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in MM improves OS and progression-free survival (PFS), and decreases skeletal-related morbidity. Our secondary objectives were to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life, incidence of hypercalcemia, incidence of bisphosphonate-related gastrointestinal toxicities, osteonecrosis of jaw (ONJ) and hypocalcemia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase (September 2011 to July 2017) and the CENTRAL (2017, Issue 7) to identify all randomized controlled trial (RCT) in MM up to July 2017 using a combination of text and MeSH terms.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Any randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo/no treatment/bisphosphonates and observational studies or case reports examining bisphosphonate-related ONJ in patients with MM were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted the data. Data were pooled and reported as hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) using a random-effects model. We used meta-regression to explore statistical heterogeneity. Network meta-analysis using Bayesian approach was conducted.
MAIN RESULTS
In this update, we included four new studies (601 participants), resulting in a total of 24 included studies.Twenty RCTs compared bisphosphonates with either placebo or no treatment and four RCTs involved another bisphosphonate as a comparator. The 24 included RCTs enrolled 7293 participants. Pooled results showed that there was moderate-quality evidence of a reduction in mortality with on OS from 41% to 31%, but the confidence interval is consistent with a larger reduction and small increase in mortality compared with placebo or no treatment (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; 14 studies; 2706 participants). There was substantial heterogeneity among the included RCTs (I = 65%) for OS. To explain this heterogeneity we performed a meta-regression assessing the relationship between bisphosphonate potency and improvement in OS, which found an OS benefit with zoledronate but limited evidence of an effect on PFS. This provided a further rationale for performing a network meta-analyses of the various types of bisphosphonates that were not compared head-to-head in RCTs. Results from network meta-analyses showed evidence of a benefit for OS with zoledronate compared with etidronate (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87) and placebo (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.91). However, there was no evidence for a difference between zoledronate and other bisphosphonates.The effect of bisphosphonates on disease progression (PFS) is uncertain. Based on the HR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.00; seven studies; 908 participants), 47% participants would experience disease progression without treatment compared with between 30% and 47% with bisphosphonates (low-quality evidence). There is probably a similar risk of non-vertebral fractures between treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56; six studies; 1389 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Pooled analysis demonstrated evidence for a difference favoring bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.89; seven studies; 1116 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and skeletal-related events (SREs) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 10 studies; 2141 participants; moderate-quality evidence). The evidence for less pain with bisphosphonates was of very low quality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.95; eight studies; 1281 participants).Bisphosphonates may increase ONJ compared with placebo but the confidence interval is very wide (RR 4.61, 95% CI 0.99 to 21.35; P = 0.05; six studies; 1284 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from the network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for a difference in the incidence of ONJ (eight RCTs, 3746 participants) between bisphosphonates. Data from nine observational studies (1400 participants) reported an incidence of 5% to 51% with combination of pamidronate and zoledronate, 3% to 11% with zoledronate alone, and 0% to 18% with pamidronate alone.The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.59; seven studies; 1829 participants; low-quality evidence).The pooled results showed no evidence for a difference in increase in frequency of hypocalcemia with the use of bisphosphonates compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 2.19, 95% CI 0.49 to 9.74; three studies; 1090 participants; low-quality evidence). The results from network meta-analysis did not show any evidence for differences in the incidence of hypocalcemia, renal dysfunction and gastrointestinal toxicity between the bisphosphonates used.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Use of bisphosphonates in participants with MM reduces pathological vertebral fractures, SREs and pain. Bisphosphonates were associated with an increased risk of developing ONJ. For every 1000 participants treated with bisphosphonates, about one patient will suffer from the ONJ. We found no evidence of superiority of any specific aminobisphosphonate (zoledronate, pamidronate or ibandronate) or non-aminobisphosphonate (etidronate or clodronate) for any outcome. However, zoledronate was found to be better than placebo and first-generation bisposphonate (etidronate) in pooled direct and indirect analyses for improving OS and other outcomes such as vertebral fractures. Direct head-to-head trials of the second-generation bisphosphonates are needed to settle the issue if zoledronate is truly the most efficacious bisphosphonate currently used in practice.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Diseases; Clodronic Acid; Diphosphonates; Disease-Free Survival; Etidronic Acid; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Imidazoles; Multiple Myeloma; Pamidronate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Fractures; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 29253322
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003188.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bisphosphonates are considered to be the treatment of choice for people with Paget's disease of bone. However, the effects of bisphosphonates on patient-centred outcomes have not been extensively studied. There are insufficient data to determine whether reducing and maintaining biochemical markers of bone turnover to within the normal range improves quality of life and reduces the risk of complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates for adult patients with Paget's disease of bone.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Knowledge and trials registers up to March 2017. We searched regulatory agency published information for rare adverse events.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bisphosphonates as treatment for Paget's disease in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results, extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials (25 reports, 3168 participants). Of these, 10 trials (801 participants) compared bisphosphonates (etidronate, tiludronate, ibandronate, pamidronate, olpadronate, alendronate, risedronate, zoledronate) versus placebo, seven compared two bisphosphonates (992 participants), one trial compared a bisphosphonates with a bisphosphonate plus calcitonin (44 participants), and two studies, the largest trial (1331 participants) and its interventional extension study (502 participants), compared symptomatic treatment and intensive treatment where the goal was to normalise alkaline phosphatase.Most studies were assessed at low or unclear risk of bias. Six of 10 studies comparing bisphosphonates versus placebo were assessed at high risk of bias, mainly around incomplete outcome data and selective outcome reporting.Participant populations were reasonably homogeneous in terms of age (mean age 66 to 74 years) and sex (51% to 74% male). Most studies included participants who had elevated alkaline phosphatase levels whether or not bone pain was present. Mean follow-up was six months.Bisphosphonates versus placeboBisphosphonates tripled the proportion (31% versus 9%) of participants whose bone pain disappeared (RR 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 8.90; 2 studies, 205 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 1 to 31; moderate-quality evidence). This result is clinically important. Data were consistent when pain change was measured as any reduction (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.01; 7 studies, 481 participants).There was uncertainty about differences in incident fractures: 1.4% fractures occurred in the bisphosphonates group and none in the placebo group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.31; 4 studies, 356 participants; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported data on orthopaedic surgery, quality of life or hearing thresholds.Results regarding adverse effects and treatment discontinuation were uncertain. There was a 64% risk of mild gastrointestinal adverse events in intervention group participants and 48% in the control group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; 6 studies, 376 participants; low-quality evidence). The likelihood of study participants discontinuing due to adverse effects was slightly higher in intervention group participants (4.4%) than the control group (4.1%) (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.52; 6 studies, 517 participants; low-quality evidence). Zoledronate was associated with an increased risk of transient fever or fatigue (RR 2.57, 95% CI 1.21 to 5.44; 1 study, 176 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Bisphosphonates versus active comparatorMore participants reported pain relief with zoledronate than pamidronate (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 89 participants; NNT 5, 95% CI 3 to 11) or risedronate (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.74; 1 study, 347 participants; NNT 7, 95% CI 4 to 24; very low quality evidence). This result is clinically important.There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude differences in adverse effects of bisphosphonates (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.76; 2 studies, 437 participants; low-quality evidence) and treatment discontinuation (2 studies, 437 participants) (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.59; 2 studies, 437 participants; very low-quality evidence).Intensive versus symptomatic treatmentThere was no consistent evidence of difference to response in bone pain, bodily pain or quality of life in participants who received intensive versus symptomatic treatment.Inconclusive results were observed regarding fractures and orthopaedic procedures for intensive versus symptomatic treatment (intensive treatment for fracture: RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.44; absolute risk 8.1% versus 5.2%; orthopaedic procedures: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.80 to 3.11; absolute risk 5.6% versus 3.0%; 1 study, 502 participants; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference in adverse effects between intensive and symptomatic treatment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41; low-quality evidence).There was insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude an important difference of risk of rare adverse events (including osteonecrosis of the jaw) from the regulatory agencies databases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-quality evidence that bisphosphonates improved pain in people with Paget's disease of bone when compared with placebo. We are uncertain about the results of head-to-head studies investigating bisphosphonates. We found insufficient evidence of benefit in terms of pain or quality of life from intensive treatment. Information about adverse effects was limited, but serious side effects were rare, and rate of withdrawals due to side effects was low.
Topics: Aged; Alkaline Phosphatase; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Calcitonin; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Male; Musculoskeletal Pain; Osteitis Deformans; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29192423
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004956.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2017Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bone is the most common site of metastatic disease associated with breast cancer (BC). Bisphosphonates inhibit osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, and novel targeted therapies such as denosumab inhibit other key bone metabolism pathways. We have studied these agents in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer settings. This is an update of the review originally published in 2002 and subsequently updated in 2005 and 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of bisphosphonates and other bone agents in addition to anti-cancer treatment: (i) in women with early breast cancer (EBC); (ii) in women with advanced breast cancer without bone metastases (ABC); and (iii) in women with metastatic breast cancer and bone metastases (BCBM).
SEARCH METHODS
In this review update, we searched Cochrane Breast Cancer's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 19 September 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: (a) one treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent with the same treatment without a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent; (b) treatment with one bisphosphonate versus treatment with a different bisphosphonate; (c) treatment with a bisphosphonate versus another bone-acting agent of a different mechanism of action (e.g. denosumab); and (d) immediate treatment with a bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent versus delayed treatment of the same bisphosphonate/bone-acting agent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was bone metastases for EBC and ABC, and a skeletal-related event (SRE) for BCBM. We derived risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the meta-analyses used random-effects models. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and disease-free survival for EBC; we derived hazard ratios (HRs) for these time-to-event outcomes where possible. We collected toxicity and quality-of-life information. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes in each treatment setting.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 44 RCTs involving 37,302 women.In women with EBC, bisphosphonates were associated with a reduced risk of bone metastases compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate (RR 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03, 11 studies; 15,005 women; moderate-quality evidence with no significant heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates provided an overall survival benefit with time-to-event data (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99; P = 0.04; 9 studies; 13,949 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity). Subgroup analysis by menopausal status showed a survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.90; P = 0.001; 4 studies; 6048 women; high-quality evidence with no evidence of heterogeneity) but no survival benefit for premenopausal women (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.22; P = 0.78; 2 studies; 3501 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). There was evidence of no effect of bisphosphonates on disease-free survival (HR 0.94, 95% 0.87 to 1.02; P = 0.13; 7 studies; 12,578 women; high-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity present) however subgroup analyses showed a disease-free survival benefit from bisphosphonates in postmenopausal women only (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.91; P < 0.001; 7 studies; 8314 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity). Bisphosphonates did not significantly reduce the incidence of fractures when compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08, P = 0.13, 6 studies, 7602 women; moderate-quality evidence due to wide confidence intervals). We await mature overall survival and disease-free survival results for denosumab trials.In women with ABC without clinically evident bone metastases, there was no evidence of an effect of bisphosphonates on bone metastases (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.43; P = 0.86; 3 studies; 330 women; moderate-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) or overall survival (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.09; P = 0.28; 3 studies; 330 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonates however the confidence intervals were wide. One study reported a trend towards an extended period of time without a SRE with bisphosphonate compared to placebo (low-quality evidence). One study reported quality of life and there was no apparent difference in scores between bisphosphonate and placebo (moderate-quality evidence).In women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduced the SRE risk by 14% (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.95; P = 0.003; 9 studies; 2810 women; high-quality evidence with evidence of heterogeneity) compared with placebo/no bisphosphonates. This benefit persisted when administering either intravenous or oral bisphosphonates versus placebo. Bisphosphonates delayed the median time to a SRE with a median ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.58; P < 0.00001; 9 studies; 2891 women; high-quality evidence with no heterogeneity) and reduced bone pain (in 6 out of 11 studies; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo/no bisphosphonate. Treatment with bisphosphonates did not appear to affect overall survival (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; P = 0.85; 7 studies; 1935 women; moderate-quality evidence with significant heterogeneity). Quality-of-life scores were slightly better with bisphosphonates than placebo at comparable time points (in three out of five studies; moderate-quality evidence) however scores decreased during the course of the studies. Denosumab reduced the risk of developing a SRE compared with bisphosphonates by 22% (RR 0.78, 0.72 to 0.85; P < 0.001; 3 studies, 2345 women). One study reported data on overall survival and observed no difference in survival between denosumab and bisphosphonate.Reported toxicities across all settings were generally mild. Osteonecrosis of the jaw was rare, occurring less than 0.5% in the adjuvant setting (high-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For women with EBC, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of bone metastases and provide an overall survival benefit compared to placebo or no bisphosphonates. There is preliminary evidence suggestive that bisphosphonates provide an overall survival and disease-free survival benefit in postmenopausal women only when compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate. This was not a planned subgroup for these early trials, and we await the completion of new large clinical trials assessing benefit for postmenopausal women. For women with BCBM, bisphosphonates reduce the risk of developing SREs, delay the median time to an SRE, and appear to reduce bone pain compared to placebo or no bisphosphonate.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Neoplasms; Breast Neoplasms; Clodronic Acid; Denosumab; Diphosphonates; Female; Humans; Imidazoles; Injections, Intravenous; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zoledronic Acid
PubMed: 29082518
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003474.pub4 -
International Journal of Oral and... Mar 2018The treatment of mandibular fractures by open reduction and internal fixation is very variable. Thus, there are many controversies about the best fixation system in... (Review)
Review
The treatment of mandibular fractures by open reduction and internal fixation is very variable. Thus, there are many controversies about the best fixation system in terms of stability, functional recovery, and postoperative complications. This systematic review sought scientific evidence regarding the best indication for the use of three-dimensional (3D) plates in the treatment of mandibular fractures. A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Elsevier/Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted to include articles published up until November 2016. Following the application of the inclusion criteria, 25 scientific articles were selected for detailed analysis. These studies included a total of 1036 patients (mean age 29 years), with a higher prevalence of males. The anatomical location most involved was the mandibular angle. The success rate of 3D plates was high at this location compared to other methods of fixation. In conclusion, the use of 3D plates for the treatment of mandibular fractures is recommended, since they result in little or no displacement between bone fragments.
Topics: Bone Plates; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Mandibular Fractures; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 28928010
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.08.009 -
The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical... Sep 2017The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of the 3-dimensional miniplate system in comparison with the standard miniplate system for the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of the 3-dimensional miniplate system in comparison with the standard miniplate system for the treatment of mandibular fractures (MFs). A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, examining Medline-Ovid, Embase, and PubMed databases. The primary search objective was to identify all papers reporting the results of randomized control trials (RCTs) for the treatment of adults with mandibular fractures, with the aim of comparing the different techniques. The incidence of complications was evaluated; nine studies including 283 patients with different fracture sites were enrolled in the analysis. The results showed no significant differences in overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.552-1.542; P = 0.81), postoperative infections (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40-2.48; P = 0.89), wound dehiscence (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.13-7.37; P = 0.96), paresthesia (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.20-1.07; P = 0.11), or malocclusion (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.39-8.32; P = 0.47) between standard miniplates and 3-dimensional miniplates for treating mandibular fractures. Mandibular fractures treated with 3-dimensional miniplates and standard miniplates presented similar short-term complication rates, and the low postoperative maxillomandibular fixation rate of using standard miniplates also indicated that the standard miniplate has a promising application in the treatment of mandibular fractures.
Topics: Adult; Bone Plates; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Malocclusion; Mandibular Fractures; Odds Ratio; Paresthesia; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Dehiscence; Surgical Wound Infection; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28865605
DOI: 10.1016/j.kjms.2017.05.001 -
Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology 2018Computed tomography (CT)-based analyses of mummies have been performed since the 1970s but, until now, no systematic summary of PubMed®-published data has been... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Computed tomography (CT)-based analyses of mummies have been performed since the 1970s but, until now, no systematic summary of PubMed®-published data has been performed. The aim was to perform a systematic review of previously published cases and summarize artificial changes and detectable paleopathologies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data collection from publications on CT analyses of mummies from ancient Egypt until the Greco-Roman period (up to 700 ad) from the PubMed® database (1973-2013) and descriptive data analysis.
RESULTS
Forty-seven publications on CT-based analyses have been identified, which reported on 189 mummies. Commonly reported artificial changes were destruction of the nasal bone and left-sided lateral abdominal incision for removal of inner organs. Dental and jaw pathologies (n = 42), chronic degenerative changes of skeletal bones (n = 39), and arteriosclerosis (n = 36) were reported in a subfraction of cases while traumatic fractures (n = 16) and other diseases were less often identified. The cause of death was rarely detectable by CT, but a cut through the throat, arrowheads, and bone fracture could be verified by CT.
CONCLUSION
Standards in documentation of CT devices have changed over the past 40 years, and insufficient documentation limits the interpretation of findings. In ancient Egyptian mummies, most organs have been removed during the mummification process while teeth and jaws are often preserved. Dental pathologies were frequent in ancient Egypt and can indicate personal circumstances and diet. The cause of death is rarely verifiable, but CT scan could be the clue. Although well known in Egyptian mummies, artificial changes may lead to misinterpretation of CT findings.
Topics: Egypt; Humans; Mummies; Tomography, X-Ray Computed
PubMed: 28823581
DOI: 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.06.012 -
International Journal of Oral and... Oct 2017Since the introduction of rigid internal fixation devices, more and more surgeons favour an open approach to treating condylar fractures of the mandible in adult... (Review)
Review
Since the introduction of rigid internal fixation devices, more and more surgeons favour an open approach to treating condylar fractures of the mandible in adult patients. Different indications for open treatment have been published. Open treatment is associated with surgical complications because of the technique employed. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the studies published exclusively on open treatment, and to summarize the existing open treatment modalities and their clinical outcomes. A total of seventy studies were selected for detailed analysis. Most studies reported good results with regard to the outcome measures of open treatment. Surgical complications including hematoma, wound infection, weakness of the facial nerve, sialocele, salivary fistula, sensory disturbance of the great auricular nerve, unsatisfactory scarring, and fixation failure were reported in the studies. This review suggests that because of the high level of methodological variance in the relevant studies published to date, among other factors, there are currently no evidence-based conclusions or guidelines that can be formulated with regard to the most appropriate open treatment. Establishment of such standards could potentially improve treatment outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Jaw Fixation Techniques; Mandibular Condyle; Mandibular Fractures; Mandibular Reconstruction
PubMed: 28732561
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.06.018 -
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery Sep 2017The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of the 2.0-mm locking miniplate system in comparison with the standard miniplate system in treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of the 2.0-mm locking miniplate system in comparison with the standard miniplate system in treatment of mandible fractures.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, examining Medline-Ovid, Embase, and PubMed databases, eligible studies were restricted to comparative controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were based on humans randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, with the aim of comparing 2 fixation techniques, namely locking miniplate and standard miniplate (nonlocking miniplate) techniques. In addition, the incidence of complications was evaluated.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 380 patients and 551 fracture sites were enrolled into the analysis. The results showed that there were no significant differences in overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-1.22; P = 0.2), postoperative infection (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.23-1.23, P = 0.15), and occlusion discrepancy (P > 0.05) when comparing 2.0-mm locking miniplates with 2.0-mm nonlocking miniplates in treating mandible fractures. However, the use of 2.0-mm locking miniplates had a lower postoperative maxillomandibular fixation rate than the use of 2.0-mm nonlocking miniplates (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.83; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Mandible fractures treated with 2.0-mm locking miniplates and standard 2.0-mm miniplates present similar short-term complication rates, and the low postoperative maxillomandibular fixation rate of using 2.0-mm locking miniplates also indicates that the 2.0-mm locking miniplate has a promising application in treatment of mandibular fractures.
Topics: Bone Plates; Fracture Fixation, Internal; Humans; Mandibular Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28708651
DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000003857 -
Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial... Jan 2018The current data suggest that the presence of lower third molars predisposes the patient to a greater risk of mandibular angle fracture. Thus, the present review sought... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The current data suggest that the presence of lower third molars predisposes the patient to a greater risk of mandibular angle fracture. Thus, the present review sought to determine whether an association exists between the presence of a lower third molar and the occurrence of a mandibular angle fracture in adults and to assess the influence of third molar position according to the Pell and Gregory classification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of analytical observational studies. The present review included all reports of the relationship between mandibular angle fractures and lower third molars. No restriction regarding year, language, or publication status was used. The review protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (registration no. CRD42016047057). Electronic searches unrestricted for publication period and language were performed in the PubMed, Scopus, SciELO, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences databases. Google Scholar and OpenGrey databases were used to search the "gray literature," avoiding selection and publication biases. The entire search was performed by 2 eligibility reviewers. Association and proportion meta-analyses were planned for the studies with sufficient data. The primary predictor variable was the relationship between the presence of a lower third molar and the development of mandibular angle fractures. The secondary outcome variables were the vertical and horizontal positions of the lower third molar, according to the Pell and Gregory classification and their relationship to the susceptibility to developing a mandibular angle fracture.
RESULTS
The search strategies resulted in 411 studies, from which 16 were selected for qualitative and quantitative review. The association meta-analysis included all the selected studies and showed that patients with lower third molars are 3.16 times more likely to develop mandibular angle fractures. The proportion meta-analysis included 5 studies and showed that the overall rate of mandibular angle fractures was 51.58% and that positions III and C are more likely to result in fracture, with a rate of 59.84 and 63.67%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of the present study have shown that the presence of impacted third molars increases by 3.16 times the risk of mandibular angle fractures in adults, with the greatest risk present when third molars are classified as IIIC according to Pell and Gregory. The available evidence is not sufficiently robust to determine whether third molar presence or the level of impaction is the main causative factor for the occurrence of mandibular angle fractures.
Topics: Humans; Mandibular Fractures; Molar, Third; Risk Factors; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 28688821
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2017.06.008