Claudius Steffen, Margrit Welter, Heilwig Fischer, Maximilian Goedecke, Christian Doll, Steffen Koerdt, Kilian Kreutzer, Max Heiland, Carsten Rendenbach, Jan O Voss
{"title":"下颌骨骨折后的复位翻修手术","authors":"Claudius Steffen, Margrit Welter, Heilwig Fischer, Maximilian Goedecke, Christian Doll, Steffen Koerdt, Kilian Kreutzer, Max Heiland, Carsten Rendenbach, Jan O Voss","doi":"10.1177/19433875231179318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective, descriptive observational study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The need for revision surgery after mandibular fractures is an indicator for severe postoperative complications. This study aimed to characterise this patient cohort, describe solutions to deal with complications and evaluate treatment quality as a risk variable for complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with revision surgery with refixation after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a mandible fracture were included. Patient- and therapy-specific information were assessed together with postoperative complications. The quality of fixation was evaluated individually by 6 specialists. Interobserver agreement was analysed using Fleiss' kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 630 patients, inclusion criteria were met by 17 patients (14 male, 3 female) with an average age of 43.3 (±15.5) years. Complications at the mandible body/angle/symphysis led to refixation in all cases. Main indications for refixation were osteomyelitis (52.9%) or pseudarthrosis (41.2%). Risk factors were drug-related immune suppression, local infection or substance abuse (nicotine, alcohol or drugs). Six patients did not present any of these predictors. Of these, treatment of 4 patients was rated as not in accordance to the AO principles. The interrater reliability of treatment quality assessments was .239.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with risk factors need to be carefully observed perioperatively after ORIF of mandibular fractures and treatments need to be adapted to these patients. Discrepancies of treatments to common guidelines may also be an independent predictor for treatment failure in patients without risk factors. Current treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated concerning additional treatment strategies for patients with specific risk factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":46447,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11425749/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Claudius Steffen, Margrit Welter, Heilwig Fischer, Maximilian Goedecke, Christian Doll, Steffen Koerdt, Kilian Kreutzer, Max Heiland, Carsten Rendenbach, Jan O Voss\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19433875231179318\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective, descriptive observational study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The need for revision surgery after mandibular fractures is an indicator for severe postoperative complications. This study aimed to characterise this patient cohort, describe solutions to deal with complications and evaluate treatment quality as a risk variable for complications.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with revision surgery with refixation after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a mandible fracture were included. Patient- and therapy-specific information were assessed together with postoperative complications. The quality of fixation was evaluated individually by 6 specialists. Interobserver agreement was analysed using Fleiss' kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 630 patients, inclusion criteria were met by 17 patients (14 male, 3 female) with an average age of 43.3 (±15.5) years. Complications at the mandible body/angle/symphysis led to refixation in all cases. Main indications for refixation were osteomyelitis (52.9%) or pseudarthrosis (41.2%). Risk factors were drug-related immune suppression, local infection or substance abuse (nicotine, alcohol or drugs). Six patients did not present any of these predictors. Of these, treatment of 4 patients was rated as not in accordance to the AO principles. The interrater reliability of treatment quality assessments was .239.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients with risk factors need to be carefully observed perioperatively after ORIF of mandibular fractures and treatments need to be adapted to these patients. Discrepancies of treatments to common guidelines may also be an independent predictor for treatment failure in patients without risk factors. Current treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated concerning additional treatment strategies for patients with specific risk factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11425749/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231179318\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231179318","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures.
Study design: Retrospective, descriptive observational study.
Objective: The need for revision surgery after mandibular fractures is an indicator for severe postoperative complications. This study aimed to characterise this patient cohort, describe solutions to deal with complications and evaluate treatment quality as a risk variable for complications.
Methods: Patients with revision surgery with refixation after open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of a mandible fracture were included. Patient- and therapy-specific information were assessed together with postoperative complications. The quality of fixation was evaluated individually by 6 specialists. Interobserver agreement was analysed using Fleiss' kappa.
Results: Out of 630 patients, inclusion criteria were met by 17 patients (14 male, 3 female) with an average age of 43.3 (±15.5) years. Complications at the mandible body/angle/symphysis led to refixation in all cases. Main indications for refixation were osteomyelitis (52.9%) or pseudarthrosis (41.2%). Risk factors were drug-related immune suppression, local infection or substance abuse (nicotine, alcohol or drugs). Six patients did not present any of these predictors. Of these, treatment of 4 patients was rated as not in accordance to the AO principles. The interrater reliability of treatment quality assessments was .239.
Conclusions: Patients with risk factors need to be carefully observed perioperatively after ORIF of mandibular fractures and treatments need to be adapted to these patients. Discrepancies of treatments to common guidelines may also be an independent predictor for treatment failure in patients without risk factors. Current treatment guidelines should be re-evaluated concerning additional treatment strategies for patients with specific risk factors.