-
European Respiratory Review : An... Dec 2021Treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in adults is evolving, as new therapies have been explored and introduced in clinical practice, while other approaches have... (Review)
Review
Treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in adults is evolving, as new therapies have been explored and introduced in clinical practice, while other approaches have been refined or reconsidered. In this European Respiratory Society (ERS) guideline on non-continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapies for OSA, we present recommendations determined by a systematic review of the literature. It is an update of the 2011 ERS statement on non-CPAP therapies, advanced into a clinical guideline. A multidisciplinary group of experts, including pulmonary, surgical, dentistry and ear-nose-throat specialists, methodologists and patient representatives considered the most relevant clinical questions (for both clinicians and patients) relating to the management of OSA. Eight key clinical questions were generated and a systematic review was conducted to identify published randomised clinical trials that answered these questions. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations. The resulting guideline addresses gastric bypass surgery, custom-made dual-block mandibular advancement devices, hypoglossal nerve stimulation, myofunctional therapy, maxillo-mandibular osteotomy, carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and positional therapy. These recommendations can be used to benchmark quality of care for people with OSA across Europe and to improve outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Continuous Positive Airway Pressure; Humans; Mandibular Advancement; Occlusal Splints; Respiratory System; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive
PubMed: 34853097
DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0200-2021 -
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine :... Sep 2011Trochanteric bursitis (TB) is a self-limiting disorder in the majority of patients and typically responds to conservative measures. However, multiple courses of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Trochanteric bursitis (TB) is a self-limiting disorder in the majority of patients and typically responds to conservative measures. However, multiple courses of nonoperative treatment or surgical intervention may be necessary in refractory cases. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of the treatment of TB.
DATA SOURCES
A literature search in the PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases was performed for all English language studies up to April 2010. Terms combined in a Boolean search were greater trochanteric pain syndrome, trochanteric bursitis, trochanteric, bursitis, surgery, therapy, drug therapy, physical therapy, rehabilitation, injection, Z-plasty, Z-lengthening, aspiration, bursectomy, bursoscopy, osteotomy, and tendon repair.
STUDY SELECTION
All studies directly involving the treatment of TB were reviewed by 2 authors and selected for further analysis. Expert opinion and review articles were excluded, as well as case series with fewer than 5 patients. Twenty-four articles were identified. According to the system described by Wright et al, 2 studies, each with multiple arms, qualified as level I evidence, 1 as level II, 1 as level III, and the rest as level IV. More than 950 cases were included.
DATA EXTRACTION
The authors extracted data regarding the type of intervention, level of evidence, mean age of patients, patient gender, number of hips in the study, symptom duration before the study, mean number of injections before the study, prior hip surgeries, patient satisfaction, length of follow-up, baseline scores, and follow-up scores for the visual analog scale (VAS) and Harris Hip Scores (HHS).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Symptom resolution and the ability to return to activity ranged from 49% to 100% with corticosteroid injection as the primary treatment modality with and without multimodal conservative therapy. Two comparative studies (levels II and III) found low-energy shock-wave therapy (SWT) to be superior to other nonoperative modalities. Multiple surgical options for persistent TB have been reported, including bursectomy (n = 2), longitudinal release of the iliotibial band (n = 2), proximal or distal Z-plasty (n = 4), osteotomy (n = 1), and repair of gluteus medius tears (n = 4).
CONCLUSIONS
Efficacy among surgical techniques varied depending on the clinical outcome measure, but all were superior to corticosteroid therapy and physical therapy according to the VAS and HHS in both comparison studies and between studies. This systematic review found that traditional nonoperative treatment helped most patients, SWT was a good alternative, and surgery was effective in refractory cases.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Bursitis; Combined Modality Therapy; Hip Joint; Humans; Physical Therapy Modalities; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21814140
DOI: 10.1097/JSM.0b013e318221299c -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016When primary root canal therapy fails, periapical lesions can be retreated with or without surgery. Root canal retreatment is a non-surgical procedure that involves... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
When primary root canal therapy fails, periapical lesions can be retreated with or without surgery. Root canal retreatment is a non-surgical procedure that involves removal of root canal filling materials from the tooth, followed by cleaning, shaping and obturating of the canals. Root-end resection is a surgical procedure that involves exposure of the periapical lesion through an osteotomy, surgical removal of the lesion, removal of part of the root-end tip, disinfection and, commonly, retrograde sealing or filling of the apical portion of the remaining root canal. This review updates one published in 2008.
OBJECTIVES
To assess effects of surgical and non-surgical therapy for retreatment of teeth with apical periodontitis.To assess effects of surgical root-end resection under various conditions, for example, when different materials, devices or techniques are used.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 10 February 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 February 2016) and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 February 2016). We searched the US National Registry of Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials (to 10 February 2016). We placed no restrictions regarding language and publication date. We handsearched the reference lists of the studies retrieved and key journals in the field of endodontics.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving people with periapical pathosis. Studies could compare surgery versus non-surgical treatment or could compare different types of surgery. Outcome measures were healing of the periapical lesion assessed after one-year follow-up or longer; postoperative pain and discomfort; and adverse effects such as tooth loss, mobility, soft tissue recession, abscess, infection, neurological damage or loss of root sealing material evaluated through radiographs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data from included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. We combined results of trials assessing comparable outcomes using the fixed-effect model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used generic inverse variance for split-mouth studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs. Two trials at high risk of bias assessed surgery versus a non-surgical approach: root-end resection with root-end filling versus root canal retreatment. The other 18 trials evaluated different surgical protocols: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) versus periapical radiography for preoperative assessment (one study at high risk of bias); antibiotic prophylaxis versus placebo (one study at unclear risk); different magnification devices (loupes, surgical microscope, endoscope) (two studies at high risk); types of incision (papilla base incision, sulcular incision) (one study at high risk and one at unclear risk); ultrasonic devices versus handpiece burs (one study at high risk); types of root-end filling material (glass ionomer cement, amalgam, intermediate restorative material (IRM), mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), gutta-percha (GP), super-ethoxy benzoic acid (EBA)) (five studies at high risk of bias, one at unclear risk and one at low risk); grafting versus no grafting (three studies at high risk and one at unclear risk); and low energy level laser therapy versus placebo (irradiation without laser activation) versus control (no use of the laser device) (one study at high risk).There was no clear evidence of superiority of the surgical or non-surgical approach for healing at one-year follow-up (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.35; two RCTs, 126 participants) or at four- or 10-year follow-up (one RCT, 82 to 95 participants), although the evidence is very low quality. More participants in the surgically treated group reported pain in the first week after treatment (RR 3.34, 95% CI 2.05 to 5.43; one RCT, 87 participants; low quality evidence).In terms of surgical protocols, there was some inconclusive evidence that ultrasonic devices for root-end preparation may improve healing one year after retreatment, when compared with the traditional bur (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30; one RCT, 290 participants; low quality evidence).There was evidence of better healing when root-ends were filled with MTA than when they were treated by smoothing of orthograde GP root filling, after one-year follow-up (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.24; one RCT, 46 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that using CBCT rather than radiography for preoperative evaluation was advantageous for healing (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.47; one RCT, 39 participants; very low quality evidence), nor that any magnification device affected healing more than any other (loupes versus endoscope at one year: RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.20; microscope versus endoscope at two years: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.15; one RCT, 70 participants, low quality evidence).There was no evidence that antibiotic prophylaxis reduced incidence of postoperative infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.64; one RCT, 250 participants; low quality evidence).There was some evidence that using a papilla base incision (PBI) may be beneficial for preservation of the interdental papilla compared with complete papilla mobilisation (one RCT (split-mouth), 12 participants/24 sites; very low quality evidence). There was no evidence of less pain in the PBI group at day 1 post surgery (one RCT, 38 participants; very low quality evidence).There was evidence that adjunctive use of a gel of plasma rich in growth factors reduced postoperative pain compared with no grafting (measured on visual analogue scale: one day postoperative MD -51.60 mm, 95% CI -63.43 to -39.77; one RCT, 36 participants; low quality evidence).There was no evidence that use of low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) prevented postoperative pain (very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence does not provide clinicians with reliable guidelines for treating periapical lesions. Further research is necessary to understand the effects of surgical versus non-surgical approaches, and to determine which surgical procedures provide the best results for periapical lesion healing and postoperative quality of life. Future studies should use standardised techniques and success criteria, precisely defined outcomes and the participant as the unit of analysis.
Topics: Humans; Periapical Periodontitis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 27759881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005511.pub3 -
Orthopaedics & Traumatology, Surgery &... Nov 2017In spite of improvements in implant designs and surgical precision, functional outcomes of mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MA TKA) have plateaued. This... (Review)
Review
In spite of improvements in implant designs and surgical precision, functional outcomes of mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (MA TKA) have plateaued. This suggests probable technical intrinsic limitations that few alternate more anatomical recently promoted surgical techniques are trying to solve. This review aims at (1) classifying the different options to frontally align TKA implants, (2) at comparing their safety and efficacy with the one from MA TKAs, therefore answering the following questions: does alternative techniques to position TKA improve functional outcomes of TKA (question 1)? Is there any pathoanatomy not suitable for kinematic implantation of a TKA (question 2)? A systematic review of the existing literature utilizing PubMed and Google Scholar search engines was performed in February 2017. Only studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the last ten years in either English or French were reviewed. We identified 569 reports, of which 13 met our eligibility criteria. Four alternative techniques to position a TKA are challenging the traditional MA technique: anatomic (AA), adjusted mechanical (aMA), kinematic (KA), and restricted kinematic (rKA) alignment techniques. Regarding osteoarthritic patients with slight to mid constitutional knee frontal deformity, the KA technique enables a faster recovery and generally generates higher functional TKA outcomes than the MA technique. Kinematic alignment for TKA is a new attractive technique for TKA at early to mid-term, but need longer follow-up in order to assess its true value. It is probable that some forms of pathoanatomy might affect longer-term clinical outcomes of KA TKA and make the rKA technique or additional surgical corrections (realignment osteotomy, retinacular ligament reconstruction etc.) relevant for this sub-group of patients. Longer follow-up is needed to define the best indication of each alternative surgical technique for TKA. Level I for question 1 (systematic review of Level I studies), level 4 for question 2.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Biomechanical Phenomena; Humans; Knee Joint; Knee Prosthesis
PubMed: 28864235
DOI: 10.1016/j.otsr.2017.07.010 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Mar 2022Background and Objectives: Tibial malunions are defined as tibial fractures that have healed in a clinically unacceptable position, resulting in deformity such as... (Review)
Review
Background and Objectives: Tibial malunions are defined as tibial fractures that have healed in a clinically unacceptable position, resulting in deformity such as shortening, lengthening, abnormal rotation, or angulation. These deformities can have adverse effects on patients, such as pain and gait disturbance, as well as long term development of post-traumatic arthritis. This paper seeks to highlight some of the options for surgical management of malunions and detail the strategies and approaches used to manage these complicated cases. Materials and Methods: An exhaustive search was conducted on PubMed using the key search terms “Tibial” OR “Tibia” AND “Malunion” to be included in the title. Exclusions to the search included any article with patients aged < 18 years, any nonhuman subjects, and any article not published or translated into English. Results: A systematic review of the literature revealed 26 articles encompassing 242 patients who had undergone surgical correction for tibia malunion. A total of 19 patients suffered from complications. Methods of treatment included osteotomies, with plate and screws, external fixator, angled blade plate, intramedullary nails, Ilizarov fixator, Taylor Spatial Frame, Precise nail, and total knee arthroplasty. Restoring alignment and the articular surface led to overwhelmingly positive patient outcomes. Conclusions: Tibial malunions take many forms, and as such, there are many approaches to correcting deformities. The literature supports the following radiological parameters to diagnose tibial malunion: 5−10 degrees angulation, 1−2 cm shortening, 10−15 degrees internal rotation, and 10−20 degrees external rotation. Surgical plans should be customized to each individual patient, as there are many approaches to tibial malunion that have been shown to be successful in delivering excellent clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adolescent; External Fixators; Fracture Fixation, Intramedullary; Humans; Osteotomy; Tibia; Tibial Fractures
PubMed: 35334565
DOI: 10.3390/medicina58030389 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Nov 2022This systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of orthodontic camouflage (OC) versus... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue effects of orthodontic camouflage (OC) versus orthodontic-orthognathic surgical (OOS) treatment in borderline class III malocclusion patients.
METHODS
Eligibility criteria. The included studies were clinical trials and/or follow-up observational studies (retrospective and prospective). Information sources. PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane, and LILACS were searched up to October 2021. Risk of bias. Downs and Black quality assessment checklist was used. Synthesis of results. The outcomes were the skeletal, dentoalveolar, and soft tissue changes obtained from pre- and post-cephalometric measurements.
RESULTS
Included studies. Out of 2089 retrieved articles, 6 were eligible and thus included in the subsequent analyses. Their overall risk of bias was moderate. Outcome results. The results are presented as pre- and post-treatment values or mean changes in both groups. Two studies reported significant retrusion of the maxillary and mandibular bases in OC, in contrast to significant maxillary protrusion and mandibular retrusion with increased ANB angle in OOS. Regarding the vertical jaw relation, one study reported a significant decrease in mandibular plane inclination in OC and a significant increase in OOS. Most of the included studies reported a significant proclination in the maxillary incisors in both groups. Three studies reported a significant proclination of the mandibular incisors in OOS, while four studies reported retroclination in OC.
CONCLUSION
Interpretation. The OSS has a protrusive effect on the maxillary base, retrusive effect on the mandibular base, and thus improvement in the sagittal relationship accompanied with a clockwise rotational effect on the mandibular plane. The OC has more proclination effect on the maxillary incisors and retroclination effect on the mandibular incisors compared to OOS. Limitation. Meta-analysis was not possible due to considerable variations among the included studies. Owing to the fact that some important data in the included studies were missing, conducting further studies with more standardized methodologies is highly urgent. Registration. The protocol for this systematic review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, No.: CRD42020199591).
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The common features including skeletal, dental, and soft tissue characteristics of borderline class III malocclusion cases make it more difficult to select the most appropriate treatment modality that can be either OC or OOS. The availability of high-level evidence-systematic reviews-makes the clinical decision much more clear and based on scientific basis rather than personal preference.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Cephalometry; Maxilla; Mandible; Malocclusion, Angle Class II
PubMed: 36098813
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04685-6 -
Cureus Jul 2022Posterosuperior calcaneal prominence, also known as Haglund's deformity, can often lead to retrocalcaneal bursitis, a significant cause of posterior heel pain. Surgery... (Review)
Review
Posterosuperior calcaneal prominence, also known as Haglund's deformity, can often lead to retrocalcaneal bursitis, a significant cause of posterior heel pain. Surgery is indicated for symptomatic patients, after a period of conservative treatment including analgesia, physiotherapy, activity, and shoe wear modification has failed. Surgical options include both open and endoscopic techniques, and typically involve excision of the retrocalcaneal bursa, resection of the calcaneal prominence, and debridement of the diseased Achilles tendon. This article aims to provide an evidence-based literature review for the surgical management of Haglund's deformity. A comprehensive evidence-based literature review of the PubMed database conducted in July 2021 identified 20 relevant articles assessing the efficacy of surgical modalities for Haglund's deformity. The 20 studies were assigned to a level of evidence (I-IV). Individual studies were reviewed to provide a grade of recommendation (A-C, I) according to the Wright classification in support of or against the surgical modality. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was performed for the 20 studies. The results show that both open and endoscopic surgical modalities are efficacious in the treatment of Haglund's deformity, significantly improving functional outcome scores such as American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores and patient satisfaction post-operatively. Endoscopic surgery appears to have the advantage of shorter operative times, lower complication rates, and better cosmesis. More studies are required to further validate and optimize these surgical techniques.
PubMed: 36060327
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.27500 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy).
MAIN RESULTS
Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.
Topics: Aged; Arthroscopy; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35238404
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014328 -
Biomedical Journal 2014The surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery has recently created a broader interest in completely eliminating time-consuming preoperative orthodontic treatment.... (Review)
Review
The surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery has recently created a broader interest in completely eliminating time-consuming preoperative orthodontic treatment. Available evidence on the surgery-first approach should be appraised to support its use in orthognathic surgery. A MEDLINE search using the keywords "surgery first" and "orthognathic surgery" was conducted to select studies using the surgery-first approach. We also manually searched the reference list of the selected keywords to include articles not selected by the MEDLINE search. The search identified 18 articles related to the surgery-first approach. There was no randomized controlled clinical trial. Four papers were excluded as the content was only personal opinion or basic scientific research. Three studies were retrospective cohort studies in nature. The other 11 studies were case reports. For skeletal Class III surgical correction, the final long-term outcomes for maxillofacial and dental relationship were not significantly different between the surgery-first approach and the orthodontics-first approach in transverse (e.g., intercanine or intermolar width) dimension, vertical (e.g., anterior open bite, lower anterior facial height) dimension, and sagittal (e.g., anterior-posterior position of pogonion and lower incisors) dimension. Total treatment duration was substantially shorter in cases of surgery-first approach use. In conclusion, most published studies related to the surgery-first approach were mainly on orthognathic correction of skeletal Class III malocclusion. Both the surgery-first approach and orthodontics-first approach had similar long-term outcomes in dentofacial relationship. However, the surgery-first approach had shorter treatment time.
Topics: Humans; Malocclusion, Angle Class III; Mandibular Osteotomy; Orthodontics, Corrective; Orthognathic Surgery; Orthognathic Surgical Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25116713
DOI: 10.4103/2319-4170.126863 -
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Feb 2008To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world.
METHODS
Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale.
RESULTS
Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies [0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34] and pharmacological therapies (ES=0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided.
CONCLUSION
Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.
Topics: Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 18279766
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.013