Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345950›Full record

ArticleCraniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction2024

Revision Surgery With Refixation After Mandibular Fractures.

Claudius Steffen, Margrit Welter, Heilwig Fischer, Maximilian Goedecke, Christian Doll, Steffen Koerdt, Kilian Kreutzer, Max Heiland, Carsten Rendenbach, Jan O Voss

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Prognostic implications of a CD8Frontiers in immunology · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

10 authors.

Claudius SteffenDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4221-4878
Margrit WelterDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Heilwig FischerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Maximilian GoedeckeDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christian DollDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Steffen KoerdtDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Kilian KreutzerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0581-4137
Max HeilandDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4987-2913
Carsten RendenbachDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jan O VossDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1760-2599

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

complicationsmandibular fractureminiplatesreconstruction platesrevision surgery

Identifiers

PMID39345950
PMCPMC11425749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.