计算机辅助虚拟规划、切割引导和预制钢板对下颌骨腓骨游离皮瓣重建效果的影响:一项系统综述方案。

Andrew Chan, Paul Sambrook, Zachary Munn, Sam Boase
{"title":"计算机辅助虚拟规划、切割引导和预制钢板对下颌骨腓骨游离皮瓣重建效果的影响:一项系统综述方案。","authors":"Andrew Chan, Paul Sambrook, Zachary Munn, Sam Boase","doi":"10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003875","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review is to synthesize the best available evidence on the outcomes of mandibular fibular free flap (MFFF) reconstructions using computer-assisted techniques versus traditional freehand techniques.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Fibular free flaps are the most commonly used free flap for mandible reconstruction and are considered best practice for mandible reconstructions following resection of head and neck cancers. There are several reported advantages of computer-assisted MFFF reconstructions, including increased accuracy, decreased operation time, decreased ischemia time, decreased overall cost and improved patient outcomes. It is important to assess the advantages and potential harms of these techniques in a systematic review.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Eligible studies will consider patients of all ages undergoing MFFF reconstruction. Studies will compare computer-assisted techniques to traditional freehand techniques for the primary outcomes of flap failure, patient-reported outcomes and bony resection margin status. Studies published in English from 2008 will be included. Experimental, quasi-experimental, prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control and analytical cross-sectional studies will be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched. Gray literature sources will include Google Scholar and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, assess full-text papers against the inclusion criteria, evaluate methodological quality using standardized critical appraisal instruments and extract data using a customized form. If possible, data will be pooled for statistical meta-analysis, and a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Summary of Findings will be presented.</p>","PeriodicalId":73539,"journal":{"name":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of computer-assisted virtual planning, cutting guides and pre-engineered plates on outcomes in mandible fibular free flap reconstructions: a systematic review protocol.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Chan, Paul Sambrook, Zachary Munn, Sam Boase\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003875\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review is to synthesize the best available evidence on the outcomes of mandibular fibular free flap (MFFF) reconstructions using computer-assisted techniques versus traditional freehand techniques.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Fibular free flaps are the most commonly used free flap for mandible reconstruction and are considered best practice for mandible reconstructions following resection of head and neck cancers. There are several reported advantages of computer-assisted MFFF reconstructions, including increased accuracy, decreased operation time, decreased ischemia time, decreased overall cost and improved patient outcomes. It is important to assess the advantages and potential harms of these techniques in a systematic review.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Eligible studies will consider patients of all ages undergoing MFFF reconstruction. Studies will compare computer-assisted techniques to traditional freehand techniques for the primary outcomes of flap failure, patient-reported outcomes and bony resection margin status. Studies published in English from 2008 will be included. Experimental, quasi-experimental, prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control and analytical cross-sectional studies will be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched. Gray literature sources will include Google Scholar and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, assess full-text papers against the inclusion criteria, evaluate methodological quality using standardized critical appraisal instruments and extract data using a customized form. If possible, data will be pooled for statistical meta-analysis, and a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Summary of Findings will be presented.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003875\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-2017-003875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本综述的目的是综合关于使用计算机辅助技术与传统徒手技术重建下颌腓骨游离皮瓣(MFFF)的结果的最佳可用证据。引言:腓骨游离皮瓣是最常用的下颌骨重建游离皮瓣,被认为是头颈癌切除后下颌骨重建的最佳实践。据报道,计算机辅助MFFF重建有几个优点,包括提高准确性、缩短手术时间、缩短缺血时间、降低总体成本和改善患者预后。在系统综述中评估这些技术的优势和潜在危害是很重要的。纳入标准:符合条件的研究将考虑接受MFFF重建的所有年龄段的患者。研究将比较计算机辅助技术与传统徒手技术在皮瓣失败、患者报告的结果和骨切除边缘状态方面的主要结果。将包括2008年以英文发表的研究报告。将考虑实验性、准实验性、前瞻性和回顾性队列、病例对照和分析性横断面研究。方法:检索MEDLINE、Embase、Scopus和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册。灰色文献来源将包括谷歌学者和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台。两名独立评审员将筛选标题和摘要,根据纳入标准评估全文论文,使用标准化的批判性评估工具评估方法学质量,并使用定制的表格提取数据。如果可能,将汇集数据进行统计荟萃分析,将提供调查结果的开发和评估(GRADE)摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of computer-assisted virtual planning, cutting guides and pre-engineered plates on outcomes in mandible fibular free flap reconstructions: a systematic review protocol.

Objective: The objective of this review is to synthesize the best available evidence on the outcomes of mandibular fibular free flap (MFFF) reconstructions using computer-assisted techniques versus traditional freehand techniques.

Introduction: Fibular free flaps are the most commonly used free flap for mandible reconstruction and are considered best practice for mandible reconstructions following resection of head and neck cancers. There are several reported advantages of computer-assisted MFFF reconstructions, including increased accuracy, decreased operation time, decreased ischemia time, decreased overall cost and improved patient outcomes. It is important to assess the advantages and potential harms of these techniques in a systematic review.

Inclusion criteria: Eligible studies will consider patients of all ages undergoing MFFF reconstruction. Studies will compare computer-assisted techniques to traditional freehand techniques for the primary outcomes of flap failure, patient-reported outcomes and bony resection margin status. Studies published in English from 2008 will be included. Experimental, quasi-experimental, prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control and analytical cross-sectional studies will be considered.

Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched. Gray literature sources will include Google Scholar and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, assess full-text papers against the inclusion criteria, evaluate methodological quality using standardized critical appraisal instruments and extract data using a customized form. If possible, data will be pooled for statistical meta-analysis, and a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Summary of Findings will be presented.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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