Geminiani Alessandro, Tsigarida Alexandra, Chochlidakis Konstantinos, Papaspyridakos Panos V, Feng Changyong, Ercoli Carlo
Quintessence Int. 2017;48(3):231-240. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a37644.
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the difference in the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications between the conventional and alternative surgical techniques, during sinus floor augmentation surgery.
Electronic databases were searched for publications related to sinus floor augmentation surgery performed with different techniques (ie, conventional lateral window, piezosurgery, osteotome, trephine) and the incidence of complications. The articles were evaluated by independent reviewers, according to predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and processed for meta-analysis, following the PRISMA protocol. Initial search returned 3,940 articles, after inclusion/exclusion criteria, and quality assessment 11 articles were included in the meta-analysis: five randomized clinical trials and six retrospective studies. All the 11 included studies compared the incidence of complications in conventional lateral window sinus augmentation surgery versus alternative techniques, including: osteotome (five articles), piezosurgery (four articles), sonic surgery (one article), and trephine (one article). Meta-analysis of the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications during conventional lateral window sinus floor augmentation surgery versus alternative techniques, showed a significantly lower incidence of intraoperative complications for the retrospective studies. However, when data from the clinical trials alone were included in the meta-analysis, a statistically significant difference could not be detected for the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications.
The use of alternative techniques for sinus floor augmentation surgery (ie, piezosurgery, sonic surgery, osteotome, and trephine) does not necessarily reduce the incidence of intraoperative and/or postoperative complications compared to the conventional technique.
本系统评价旨在评估在鼻窦底提升手术中,传统手术技术与替代手术技术在术中和术后并发症发生率上的差异。
检索电子数据库,查找与采用不同技术(即传统外侧开窗、压电手术、骨凿、环钻)进行的鼻窦底提升手术及并发症发生率相关的出版物。文章由独立评审员根据预先确定的纳入/排除标准进行评估,并按照PRISMA协议进行荟萃分析。初步检索返回3940篇文章,经过纳入/排除标准及质量评估后,11篇文章被纳入荟萃分析:5项随机临床试验和6项回顾性研究。所有11项纳入研究比较了传统外侧开窗鼻窦提升手术与替代技术(包括:骨凿(5篇文章)、压电手术(4篇文章)、声波手术(1篇文章)和环钻(1篇文章))的并发症发生率。对传统外侧开窗鼻窦底提升手术与替代技术在术中和术后并发症发生率的荟萃分析显示,回顾性研究中术中并发症发生率显著较低。然而,当仅将临床试验数据纳入荟萃分析时,术中和术后并发症发生率未检测到统计学上的显著差异。
与传统技术相比,使用替代技术进行鼻窦底提升手术(即压电手术、声波手术、骨凿和环钻)不一定能降低术中和/或术后并发症的发生率。