Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a new classification for surgical approaches

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi ◽  
Aurélien Louvrier ◽  
Giacomo Colletti ◽  
Larry M. Wolford ◽  
Federico Biglioli ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 601-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. dos Santos Alves ◽  
B.W. de Freitas Alves ◽  
A.C. de Figueiredo Costa ◽  
B.G.D.S. Carneiro ◽  
L.M. de Sousa ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 90 (8) ◽  
pp. 685-688 ◽  
Author(s):  
William D Beasley ◽  
Christopher P Gibbons

INTRODUCTION This is a retrospective case series analysis to compare the incidence of cranial nerve injuries in carotid endarterectomy by the retrojugular and anteromedial approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were extracted from a prospectively collected database. Ninety-one retrojugular carotid endarterectomies were compared with 145 anteromedial carotid endarterectomies. All were performed under local anaesthesia and used the eversion technique. Data were analysed using the chi-squared test. RESULTS Nine (3.8%) cases were complicated by cranial nerve injuries. In four cases, multiple nerves were involved. In total, 13 (5.5%) cranial nerves were injured. The affected nerves were: two (0.8%) marginal mandibular, two (0.8%) laryngeal, three (1.2%) accessory and six (2.5%) hypoglossal. There was no statistically significant difference in total or specific cranial nerve injuries between the two surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS The risk of cranial nerve injuries was similar following either the retrojugular or anteromedial approach. Accessory nerve injuries were only seen in the retrojugular approach but this did not reach statistical significance.


2020 ◽  
Vol 162 (9) ◽  
pp. 2135-2143
Author(s):  
Davide Tiziano Di Carlo ◽  
Gabriele Capo ◽  
Arianna Fava ◽  
Federico Cagnazzo ◽  
Miguel Margil-Sànchez ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 3073-3083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walid El Ansari ◽  
Ayman El-Menyar ◽  
Brijesh Sathian ◽  
Hassan Al-Thani ◽  
Mohammed Al-Kuwari ◽  
...  

Abstract Background This systematic review and meta-analysis searched, retrieved and synthesized the evidence as to whether preoperative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (p-EGD) should be routine before bariatric surgery (BS). Methods Databases searched for retrospective, prospective, and randomized (RCT) or quasi-RCT studies (01 January 2000–30 April 2019) of outcomes of routine p-EGD before BS. STROBE checklist assessed the quality of the studies. P-EGD findings were categorized: Group 0 (no abnormal findings); Group 1 (abnormal findings that do not necessitate changing the surgical approach or postponing surgery); Group 2 (abnormal findings that change the surgical approach or postpone surgery); and Group 3 (findings that signify absolute contraindications to surgery). We assessed data heterogeneity and publication bias. Random effect model was used. Results Twenty-five eligible studies were included (10,685 patients). Studies were heterogeneous, and there was publication bias. Group 0 comprised 5424 patients (56%, 95% CI: 45–67%); Group 1, 2064 patients (26%, 95% CI: 23–50%); Group 2, 1351 patients (16%, 95% CI: 11–21%); and Group 3 included 31 patients (0.4%, 95% CI: 0–1%). Conclusion For 82% of patients, routine p-EGD did not change surgical plan/ postpone surgery. For 16% of patients, p-EGD findings necessitated changing the surgical approach/ postponing surgery, but the proportion of postponements due to medical treatment of H Pylori as opposed to “necessary” substantial change in surgical approach is unclear. For 0.4% patients, p-EGD findings signified absolute contraindication to surgery. These findings invite a revisit to whether p-EGD should be routine before BS, and whether it is judicious to expose many obese patients to an invasive procedure that has potential risk and insufficient evidence of effectiveness. Further justification is required.


2021 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. E9
Author(s):  
Vaidya Govindarajan ◽  
Jean-Paul Bryant ◽  
Roberto J. Perez-Roman ◽  
Michael Y. Wang

OBJECTIVE Cervical fractures in patients with ankylosing spondylitis can have devastating neurological consequences. Currently, several surgical approaches are commonly used to treat these fractures: anterior, posterior, and anterior-posterior. The relative rarity of these fractures has limited the ability of surgeons to objectively determine the merits of each. The authors present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the utility of anterior surgical approaches relative to posterior and anterior-posterior approaches. METHODS After a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, 7 clinical studies were included in the final qualitative and 6 in the final quantitative analyses. Of these studies, 6 compared anterior approaches with anterior-posterior and posterior approaches, while 1 investigated only an anterior approach. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated where appropriate. RESULTS A meta-analysis of postoperative neurological improvement revealed no statistically significant differences in gross rates of neurological improvement between anterior and posterior approaches (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.10–1.59; p = 0.19). However, when analyzing the mean change in neurological function, patients who underwent anterior approaches had a significantly lower mean change in postoperative neurological function relative to patients who underwent posterior approaches (mean difference [MD] −0.60, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.45; p < 0.00001). An identical trend was seen between anterior and anterior-posterior approaches; there were no statistically significant differences in gross rates of neurological improvement (OR 3.05, 95% CI 0.84–11.15; p = 0.09). However, patients who underwent anterior approaches experienced a lower mean change in neurological function relative to anterior-posterior approaches (MD −0.46, 95% CI −0.60 to −0.32; p < 0.00001). There were no significant differences in complication rates between anterior approaches, posterior approaches, or anterior-posterior approaches, although complication rates trended lower in patients who underwent anterior approaches. CONCLUSIONS The results of this review and meta-analysis demonstrated the varying benefits of anterior approaches relative to posterior and anterior-posterior approaches in treatment of cervical fractures associated with ankylosing spondylitis. While reports demonstrated lower degrees of neurological improvement in anterior approaches, they may benefit patients with less-severe injuries if lower complication rates are desired.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document