Shah Alay, Perez-Otero Sofia, Tran David, Aponte Hermes A, Oh Cheongeun, Agrawal Nikhil
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Medical Student, Clinical Assistant Professor, Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY.
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Medical Student, Clinical Assistant Professor, Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Apr;82(4):449-460. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2024.01.011. Epub 2024 Jan 19.
This study investigates whether the intraoral approach to mandibular open reduction and internal fixation, through exposure to the oral cavity's microbiome, results in higher infection rates compared to the extraoral approach, thus addressing a critical public health concern, potentially offering an opportunity to reduce health-care costs, and aiming to guide effective clinical practice.
In this systematic review with meta-analyses, a review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed for articles published between 1989 and 2023. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on open reduction and internal fixation mandibular fractures comparing intraoral and extraoral approaches and reporting infection rates. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-English articles, case reports, and studies with insufficient approach-specific data. The primary outcome was the postoperative infection rate, with surgical approach as the predictor. Covariates such as age, sex, diabetes, and smoking status were included when reported. Data were analyzed using R software, employing random-effects models due to anticipated heterogeneity (I statistics).
From 61 studies, 11 provided direct comparisons involving 1,317 patients-937 intraoral and 380 extraoral. Infection rates were 5.9% for intraoral and 10% for extraoral approaches. Pooled relative risk was 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.63, 1.39], suggesting no significant risk difference. Prevalence of infections was estimated at 9% for intraoral and 6.1% for extraoral procedures, with significant heterogeneity (I = 84% for intraoral and 56% for extraoral).
Our meta-analysis found no significant difference in infection rates between the two approaches. There is opportunity to expand on reporting complication rates comparing the various approaches to mandibular fixation. Until these data are presented, surgeon preference may dictate the operative approach to expose the mandible for reduction and fixation.
本研究旨在调查经口腔入路进行下颌骨切开复位内固定术,因暴露于口腔微生物群,与经口外入路相比是否会导致更高的感染率,从而解决一个关键的公共卫生问题,有可能提供降低医疗成本的机会,并旨在指导有效的临床实践。
在这项带有荟萃分析的系统评价中,按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南对文献进行了综述。使用Embase和PubMed对1989年至2023年发表的文章进行了全面的文献检索。纳入标准针对比较经口腔和经口外入路的下颌骨切开复位内固定术研究,并报告感染率。排除标准排除了非英文文章、病例报告以及特定入路数据不足的研究。主要结局是术后感染率,手术入路作为预测因素。报告时纳入年龄、性别、糖尿病和吸烟状况等协变量。使用R软件进行数据分析,由于预期存在异质性(I统计量),采用随机效应模型。
从61项研究中,11项提供了直接比较,涉及1317例患者——937例经口腔入路和380例经口外入路。经口腔入路的感染率为5.9%,经口外入路为10%。合并相对风险为0.94[95%置信区间,0.63,1.39],表明无显著风险差异。经口腔手术的感染患病率估计为9%,经口外手术为6.1%,存在显著异质性(经口腔入路I = 84%,经口外入路I = 56%)。
我们的荟萃分析发现两种入路的感染率无显著差异。有机会进一步报告比较下颌骨固定各种入路的并发症发生率。在提供这些数据之前,外科医生的偏好可能决定暴露下颌骨进行复位和固定的手术入路。