Iliac Crest Bone Graft Harvest for Alveolar Cleft Repair: A Systematic Review Comparing Minimally Invasive Trephine and Conventional Open Techniques.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Plastic surgery Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-30 DOI:10.1177/22925503221088840
Anna R Todd, Shannon Fitzpatrick, Thomas R Cawthorn, Frankie O G Fraulin, A Robertson Harrop
{"title":"Iliac Crest Bone Graft Harvest for Alveolar Cleft Repair: A Systematic Review Comparing Minimally Invasive Trephine and Conventional Open Techniques.","authors":"Anna R Todd, Shannon Fitzpatrick, Thomas R Cawthorn, Frankie O G Fraulin, A Robertson Harrop","doi":"10.1177/22925503221088840","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> In the course of developing a standardized pathway for alveolar cleft repair, we conducted a systematic review comparing minimally invasive trephine with conventional open technique for iliac crest bone graft harvest in a pediatric population. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic review was conducted of studies comparing open with minimally invasive trephine techniques in pediatric populations undergoing alveolar cleft repair. Exclusion criteria included reviews, case series, editorials, abstracts, and those with adult-only populations. Data were compiled with outcome variables selected <i>a priori</i>. <b>Results:</b> Of 422 manuscripts screened, five met criteria. These comprised 257 patients (116 open, 141 trephine). Average age was 11 years. Patients undergoing trephine harvest had reduced length of stay (1.0-5.0 days trephine vs 1.25-5.4 days open), time to unassisted ambulation (16-46 hours vs 20-67 hours open), and less postoperative narcotic use (0.31 mg/kg vs 1.64 mg/kg IV morphine). Volume of cancellous bone was reported as 2.53 mL for open versus 1.22 mL for trephine in one study, and trephine graft was supplemented with demineralized bone in 54% of cases in another study. The use of anesthetic adjuncts was inconsistent but had a significant effect on postoperative pain and ambulation. <b>Conclusions:</b> Compared to open techniques, the minimally invasive trephine bone graft harvest is associated with a shorter time to discharge, slightly lower infection rates, and reduced opioid use. The possible benefits of trephine harvest must however be balanced against the risk of insufficient graft harvest. Finally, the choice of perioperative analgesic adjuncts significantly impacts patient outcomes regardless of the technique employed.</p>","PeriodicalId":20206,"journal":{"name":"Plastic surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10902489/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503221088840","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In the course of developing a standardized pathway for alveolar cleft repair, we conducted a systematic review comparing minimally invasive trephine with conventional open technique for iliac crest bone graft harvest in a pediatric population. Methods: A systematic review was conducted of studies comparing open with minimally invasive trephine techniques in pediatric populations undergoing alveolar cleft repair. Exclusion criteria included reviews, case series, editorials, abstracts, and those with adult-only populations. Data were compiled with outcome variables selected a priori. Results: Of 422 manuscripts screened, five met criteria. These comprised 257 patients (116 open, 141 trephine). Average age was 11 years. Patients undergoing trephine harvest had reduced length of stay (1.0-5.0 days trephine vs 1.25-5.4 days open), time to unassisted ambulation (16-46 hours vs 20-67 hours open), and less postoperative narcotic use (0.31 mg/kg vs 1.64 mg/kg IV morphine). Volume of cancellous bone was reported as 2.53 mL for open versus 1.22 mL for trephine in one study, and trephine graft was supplemented with demineralized bone in 54% of cases in another study. The use of anesthetic adjuncts was inconsistent but had a significant effect on postoperative pain and ambulation. Conclusions: Compared to open techniques, the minimally invasive trephine bone graft harvest is associated with a shorter time to discharge, slightly lower infection rates, and reduced opioid use. The possible benefits of trephine harvest must however be balanced against the risk of insufficient graft harvest. Finally, the choice of perioperative analgesic adjuncts significantly impacts patient outcomes regardless of the technique employed.

髂骨嵴骨移植修复牙槽嵴裂:微创Trephine与传统开放技术比较的系统评价
背景:在开发牙槽裂修复的标准化途径的过程中,我们进行了一项系统综述,比较了微创环锯术和传统开放技术在儿科人群中获取髂嵴骨移植物的效果。方法:对在接受牙槽裂修复的儿童人群中比较开放式和微创环锯技术的研究进行系统综述。排除标准包括综述、病例系列、社论、摘要和仅限成人的人群。数据采用事先选择的结果变量进行汇编。结果:在筛选的422份手稿中,有5份符合标准。其中257名患者(116名开放式,141名环钻)。平均年龄11岁。接受环锯术的患者住院时间缩短(环锯术1.0-5.0天vs开放1.25-5.4天),无辅助行走时间缩短(开放16-46小时vs开放20-67小时),术后麻醉药物使用减少(0.31 mg/kg vs静脉注射1.64 mg/kg吗啡)。松质骨的体积报告为2.53 打开时为mL,而打开时为1.22 mL,在另一项研究中,54%的病例用脱矿骨补充环锯移植物。麻醉辅助剂的使用不一致,但对术后疼痛和行走有显著影响。结论:与开放技术相比,微创环钻骨移植物收获与出院时间更短、感染率略低和阿片类药物使用减少有关。然而,环钻收获的可能好处必须与移植物收获不足的风险相平衡。最后,无论采用何种技术,围手术期镇痛辅助药物的选择都会显著影响患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Plastic surgery
Plastic surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Plastic Surgery (Chirurgie Plastique) is the official journal of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Group for the Advancement of Microsurgery, and the Canadian Society for Surgery of the Hand. It serves as a major venue for Canadian research, society guidelines, and continuing medical education.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信