Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:To assess patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for two implant placement techniques in cases of sinus bone atrophy (bone graft surgery (BGS) versus computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS)), after surgery and one year later, and to evaluate the clinical success of both treatments. METHODS:Sixty patients with bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla and in need of implant placement were randomly assigned to two groups, and in accordance with the case report form (CRF), 30 were treated with BGS and 30 with CAIS. Immediately after treatment and one year later, PROMs were assessed, and the clinical success of both treatments was evaluated. RESULTS:No significant differences were found between BGS and CAIS with regard to the following: loss of implants (p = 492); patient recommendation (p = 210); duration of surgery (p = 987); pain on the intervention day (p = 512); pain in the week after intervention (p = 299); and complications in the stage of surgery (p = 1.00). Similarly, at one year, no differences were found with regard to the following: pain around implant (p = 481); infection of implants (p = 491); abnormal radiographic imaging (p = 226); occurrence of undesirable events (p = 1.00); loss of one of the implants (p = 1.00); plaque detection (p = 1.00); bleeding on probing (p = 236); and presence of keratinized mucosa (p = 226). However, a significant difference was found among BGS and CAIS with regard to the number of consultations (p = 0001); number of implants placed (p = 033); and treatment difficulty (p = 0369). Significant differences were found for peri-implantitis (p = 0481) and radiology of craterization (p = 020) in clinical examination at the first year. CONCLUSION:Treatment difficulty and number of consultations were higher for BGS than for CAIS, as well as peri-implantitis and bone craterization at one year, indicating significant differences between the two treatments. However, there were no statistically significant differences between BGS and CAIS regarding the other PROMs, at placement and after one year.

SUBMITTER: Almahrous G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7246902 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial.

Almahrous Ghazwan G David-Tchouda Sandra S Sissoko Aboubacar A Rancon Nathalie N Bosson Jean-Luc JL Fortin Thomas T

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200425 9

<h4>Purpose</h4>To assess patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for two implant placement techniques in cases of sinus bone atrophy (bone graft surgery (BGS) versus computer-aided implant surgery (CAIS)), after surgery and one year later, and to evaluate the clinical success of both treatments.<h4>Methods</h4>Sixty patients with bone atrophy in the posterior maxilla and in need of implant placement were randomly assigned to two groups, and in accordance with the case report form (CRF), 30 w ...[more]

PMID: 32344891

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe present systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of zygomatic implant (ZI) placement using dynamic computer-aided surgery (d-CAIS), static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), and a free-hand approach in patients with severe atrophic edentulous maxilla and/or deficient maxilla.MethodsElectronic and manual literature searches until May 2023 were performed in the PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Clinical trials and cadaver studies were selected. The primary outcome was planned/placed deviation. Secondary outcomes were to evaluate the survival of ZI and surgical complications. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and meta-regression was utilized to compare fiducial registration amounts for d-CAIS and the different designs of s-CAIS.ResultsA total of 14 studies with 511 ZIs were included (Nobel Biocare: 274, Southern Implant: 42, SIN Implant: 16, non-mentioned: 179). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the d-CAIS group were 1.81 mm (95% CI: 1.34-2.29) at the entry point and 2.95 mm (95% CI: 1.66-4.24) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 3.49 degrees (95% CI: 2.04-4.93). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the s-CAIS group were 1.19 mm (95% CI: 0.83-1.54) at the entry point and 1.80 mm (95% CI: 1.10-2.50) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 2.15 degrees (95% CI: 1.43-2.88). The pooled mean ZI deviations from the free-hand group were 2.04 mm (95% CI: 1.69-2.39) at the entry point and 3.23 mm (95% CI: 2.34-4.12) at the apex point, and angular deviations were 4.92 degrees (95% CI: 3.86-5.98). There was strong evidence of differences in the average entry, apex, and angular deviation between the navigation, surgical guide, and free-hand groups (p < 0.01). A significant inverse correlation was observed between the number of fiducial screws and the planned/placed deviation regarding entry, apex, and angular measurements.ConclusionUsing d-CAIS and modified s-CAIS for ZI surgery has shown clinically acceptable outcomes regarding average entry, apex, and angular deviations. The maximal deviation values were predominantly observed in the conventional s-CAIS. Surgeons should be mindful of potential deviations and complications regardless of the decision making in different guide approaches.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare requires patient feedback to improve outcomes and experience. This study undertook a systematic review of the depth, variability, and digital suitability of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.MethodsA PROSPERO-registered (registration number CRD42021261707) systematic review was undertaken for all relevant English language articles using PubMed version of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science electronic databases in June 2021. The search used Boolean operators and wildcards and included the keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy AND patient outcome OR patient-reported outcome OR patient-reported outcome measure OR PRO OR PROM. Medical Subjects Heading terms were used to search PubMed and Scopus. Articles published from 1 January 2011 to 2 June 2021 were included.ResultsA total of 4960 individual articles were reviewed in this study, of which 44 were found to evaluate PROMs in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and underwent methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) grading. Twenty-one articles spanning 19 countries and four continents met all inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative data synthesis. There was significant heterogeneity in PROMs identified with eight different comprehensive PROM tools used in the 21 studies. There was wide variation in the time points at which PROMs were recorded. Fourteen of 21 studies recorded PROMs before and after surgery, and 7 of 21 recorded PROMs only after surgery. Follow-up intervals ranged from 3 days to 2 years after surgery.ConclusionsThis study identified that while post-laparoscopic cholecystectomy PROMs are infrequently measured currently, tools are widely available to achieve this in clinical practice. PROMs may not capture all the outcomes but should be incorporated into future cholecystectomy outcome research. The EQ-5D™ (EuroQoL Group, Rotterdam, the Netherlands) provides a simple platform for the modern digital era.

Project description:IntroductionTo evaluate the quality of clinical practice, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important as certain questions could only be answered by the patient himself. PROMs help to get a better understanding what is meaningful to a patient and directly affects daily functioning. To move beyond traditional measures, we are interested in what matters to patients and developed this project. The aim of this article is to provide the protocol for our study collecting PROMs in daily medical practice from patients who undergo knee arthroplasty.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-site, observational, prospective cohort study. We will recruit patients scheduled for a knee arthroplasty in our medical office, situated in a private clinic. After signed informed consent, patients complete self-reported questionnaires before the surgery, after 4 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years. We will use the following PROMs: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Forgotten Joint Score, EuroQol five dimensions and satisfaction. Additionally, the surgeon will complete the objective Knee Society Score. Administration of the questionnaires will be electronically or paper-based. We will assess differences between preoperative and postoperative data with paired t-test for continuous variables and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for categorical variables. To assess subgroup differences, we will use unpaired t-test for continuous variables and Mann-Whitney U test for categorical variables. To assess possible presence of bias, we will conduct sensitivity analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee in Basel, Switzerland. Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients. We will disseminate the results of the study through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations and presentations to relevant stakeholders through appropriate channels.

Dataset Information

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial.

Publications

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Two Implant Placement Techniques in Sinus Region (Bone Graft versus Computer-Aided Implant Surgery): A Randomized Prospective Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets