Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2023
The Reconstruction of Mandible Defects in War Injuries: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rehman Umar, Shemie Melissa, Sarwar Mohammad Sohaib, Adebayo Oluwasemilore, Brennan Peter A
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
OBJECTIVE: There has been an increasing trend in maxillofacial injuries associated with combat trauma. Within the maxillofacial complex, the mandible is the most likely structure to be damaged during combat. The structural deficits as a result can be reconstructed with many options. These include vascularised bone grafts (VBGs), non-vascularised bone grafts (NVBGs), alloplastic implants, reconstruction bars and distraction osteogenesis. This study aimed to determine the common modality and efficacy of mandibular reconstruction in combat trauma-related defects.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Prospero, Dynamed, DARE, EMBASE, COCHRANE and BMJ databases.
RESULTS: A total of six articles met the inclusion criteria identifying 165 patients requiring mandibular reconstruction. Non-vascularised iliac bone graft (n = 137) was the most common method followed by ileac crest bone chips harvest using Dacron urethran osteomesh tray (n = 24) and frontoparietal grafts (n = 4). Meta-analysis of five out of six trials demonstrated an overall success rate of 85% (95% CI 79-90; I2 = 59%). A total of 13% (n = 22) of reconstructions failed either completely or partially and 21% (n = 34) of patients suffered postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: NVBGs are a practical, cost-effective and favourable method of war zone management of mandibular defects with success rates comparable to those reported in the civilian literature. However, general trauma principles take precedence to rule out life-threatening injuries. Due consideration of patient factors, surgical factors, and available resources are required in the first-line management of combat-related mandibular defects.
OBJECTIVE: There has been an increasing trend in maxillofacial injuries associated with combat trauma. Within the maxillofacial complex, the mandible is the most likely structure to be damaged during combat. The structural deficits as a result can be reconstructed with many options. These include vascularised bone grafts (VBGs), non-vascularised bone grafts (NVBGs), alloplastic implants, reconstruction bars and distraction osteogenesis. This study aimed to determine the common modality and efficacy of mandibular reconstruction in combat trauma-related defects.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted on Pubmed, Prospero, Dynamed, DARE, EMBASE, COCHRANE and BMJ databases.
RESULTS: A total of six articles met the inclusion criteria identifying 165 patients requiring mandibular reconstruction. Non-vascularised iliac bone graft (n = 137) was the most common method followed by ileac crest bone chips harvest using Dacron urethran osteomesh tray (n = 24) and frontoparietal grafts (n = 4). Meta-analysis of five out of six trials demonstrated an overall success rate of 85% (95% CI 79-90; I2 = 59%). A total of 13% (n = 22) of reconstructions failed either completely or partially and 21% (n = 34) of patients suffered postoperative complications.
CONCLUSIONS: NVBGs are a practical, cost-effective and favourable method of war zone management of mandibular defects with success rates comparable to those reported in the civilian literature. However, general trauma principles take precedence to rule out life-threatening injuries. Due consideration of patient factors, surgical factors, and available resources are required in the first-line management of combat-related mandibular defects.