Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29165438›Full record

ArticleActa otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale2017

Our experience in the surgical management of craniofacial fibrous dysplasia: what has changed in the last 10 years?

V Valentini, A Cassoni, V Terenzi, M Della Monaca, M T Fadda, O Rajabtork Zadeh, I Raponi, A Anelli, G Iannetti

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. A rare case report of craniofacial fibrous dysplasia.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFP
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

V ValentiniOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
A CassoniOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
V TerenziOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
M Della MonacaOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
M T FaddaOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
O Rajabtork ZadehOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
I RaponiOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
A AnelliOtolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Dept, National Cancer Institute "Regina Elena", Rome, Italy.
G IannettiOdontostomatological Science and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, "Sapienza" University of Rome. Policlinico Umberto I, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITNational Cancer Institute · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mainstay of treatment of craniofacial dysplasia (CFD) remains surgery once clinical observation has been excluded. Nevertheless, disagreement remains about the type of surgical intervention (remodelling versus radical resection). The aim of this paper is to present our experience until 2013 comparing CFD management between 1980 and 2002 and between 2003 and 2013 and to propose our surgical algorithm. From January 2003 to December 2013, 41 new patients (18 males and 23 females) with histologically demonstrated CFD presented to our Department. Data were compared with those of 95 patients observed and/or treated between 1980 and 2002. Considering the last period, we noted that observation (26/41 patients) was the most used method; radical resection was performed in most cases (8/15 patients), but in proportion the numbers of patients undergoing bone shaving has increased (6% between 1980 and 2002 vs 15% between 2003 and 2013), while a decrease in the number of patients undergoing excision was seen (63% between 1980 and 2002 vs. 19% between 2003 and 2013). On this basis, we believe that radical resection is the only technique to obtain resolution of fibrous dysplasia. Wait-and-see is indicated in case of stable lesions. Reconstructive techniques allow obtaining adequate aesthetical and functional results; nevertheless, in most cases adjunctive surgical refinements are required and recovery time is higher than with surgical shaving, so that most patients prefer to perform remodelling. Nevertheless, in case of aggressive lesions radical resection is mandatory, except in paediatric patients with residual large defects in which it can be acceptable to try to resolve symptoms via bone shaving, reserving more aggressive treatments in case of relapse or after skeletal maturity.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAdolescentAdultAgedChildFacial BonesFemaleFibrous Dysplasia, PolyostoticHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrthopedic ProceduresSkullTime FactorsYoung AdultCraniofacial fibrous dysplasiaFree flapPaediatric reconstructionSurgical treatment

Identifiers

PMID29165438
PMCPMC5720872
OpenAlexW2770470071

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.