Dataset Information

Piezoelectric Osteotomy versus Conventional Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Previous systematic reviews evaluating piezoelectric osteotomy are of critically low quality. We conducted a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes for piezoelectric versus conventional osteotomy.

Methods

The study protocol was published a priori (PROSPERO: CRD42021287877). MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched for studies comparing piezoelectric versus conventional osteotomes and reporting at least one outcome of interest (clinical or patient-reported outcomes, PROs). Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using GRADE and Cochrane's RoB-2/ROBINS-I tools, respectively. Random effects models were applied.

Results

Of 347 articles, 10 studies (nine randomized controlled trials; one prospective cohort study) including 554 patients were included. Piezoelectric osteotomy was associated with significantly reduced edema [standardized mean difference (SMD), -0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI), -1.03 to -0.30; P < 0.0004], ecchymosis (SMD, -0.93; 95% CI, -1.13 to -0.73; P < 0.00001), and pain (SMD, -1.48; 95% CI, -2.07 to -0.88; P < 0.00001) compared with standard osteotomy. Odds of mucosal injury were significantly lower following piezoelectric osteotomy (odds ratio, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.52; P = 0.01). There was no difference in duration of osteotomy (SMD, 3.15; 95% CI, -1.82 to 8.12; P = 0.22) or total procedure duration (SMD, 0.46; 95% CI, -0.43 to 1.36; P = 0.31). One study reported PROs, favoring piezoelectric osteotomy.

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides support (albeit weak, due to low-quality evidence) for piezoelectric over conventional osteotomy, for reducing morbidity in the early postoperative period. High-quality level I data reporting PROs will optimize shared decision-making/informed consent.

SUBMITTER: Khajuria A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9699654 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Piezoelectric Osteotomy versus Conventional Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Khajuria Ankur A Krzak Ada M AM Reddy Rohin K RK Lai Kenneth K Wignakumar Thirushan T Rohrich Rod J RJ

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 20221123 11

Previous systematic reviews evaluating piezoelectric osteotomy are of critically low quality. We conducted a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes for piezoelectric versus conventional osteotomy.<h4>Methods</h4>The study protocol was published a priori (PROSPERO: CRD42021287877). MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched for studies comparing piezoelectric versus conventional osteotomes and reporting at least one outcome of interest (clinical or p ...[more]

PMID: 36448013

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of "mini," "cardiopulmonary," "bypass," "extracorporeal," "perfusion," and "circuit." Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded.ResultsThe 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], -96.37 mL; 95% CI, -152.70 to -40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, -0.70 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, -2.27 hours; 95% CI, -3.03 to -1.50 hours; P < .001).ConclusionsMECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost-utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.

Project description:Robotic-assisted mitral valve surgery (RMVS) is becoming an increasingly performed procedure in cardiac surgery, however, its true safety and efficacy compared to the gold standard conventional sternotomy approach [conventional sternotomy mitral valve surgery (CSMVS)] remains debated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a comprehensive analysis of all available literature comparing RMVS to CSMVS. An electronic search of five databases was performed to identify all relevant studies comparing RMVS to CSMVS. Pre-defined primary outcomes of interest included all-cause mortality, cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) and re-operation for bleeding. Secondary outcomes of interest included cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. The search strategy identified fourteen studies qualifying for inclusion in this meta-analysis comparing RMVS to CSMVS. The outcomes of 6,341 patients (2,804 RMVS and 3,537 CSMVS) were included. RMVS had significantly lower mortality when compared to CSMVS group in both the unmatched [odds ratio (OR) 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.57; P<0.001] and matched cohorts (OR 0.35; 95% CI: 0.15-0.80; P=0.01). There was no significant difference in rates of CVA or re-operation for bleeding between the two groups in either the entire included cohort or matched patients. CSMVS had significantly shorter cross clamp time by 28 minutes (95% CI: 19.30-37.32; P<0.001) and CPB time by 49 minutes (95% CI: 36.16-61.01; P<0.001) which remained significantly shorter in the matched cohorts. RMVS had shorter ICU [mean difference (MD) 26 hours; 95% CI: -34.31 to -18.52; P<0.001] and hospital LOS (MD 2 days; 95% CI: -2.66 to -1.37; P<0.001), which were again both significantly shorter in the matched cohort. RMVS group also had fewer RBC transfusions (OR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.28-0.70; P<0.001). Current evidence on comparative outcomes of RMVS and CSMVS is limited with only low-quality studies currently available. This present meta-analysis suggests that RMVS may have lower mortality and shorter ICU and hospital LOS, however CSMVS may be associated with significantly shorter cross clamp and CPB times. Further analysis of high-quality studies with randomized data is required to verify these results.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed.ObjectiveTo systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model.Main outcomes and measuresDifference in infectious complication rate between groups.ResultsA total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86).Conclusions and relevanceThis study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study's results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty.Level of evidence1.

Dataset Information

Piezoelectric Osteotomy versus Conventional Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Piezoelectric Osteotomy versus Conventional Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets