SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Evaluating Surgical Accuracy in Bimaxillary Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mandible-First versus Maxilla-First Approaches.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Splintless approach improves surgical accuracy in Le Fort I osteotomies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMandible-first surgery (MdFS) has gained attention as an alternative to the traditional maxilla-first surgery (MxFS) in bimaxillary procedures. Given the distinct sequence of operations between these approaches, evaluating the clinical advantages of MdFS compared to MxFS is crucial for optimizing surgical decision-making. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine intraoperative achievability and postoperative stability between these two surgical approaches.
methodsA thorough literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MEDLINE, covering articles published from 2013 to 2023. Studies included were retrospective, prospective, and randomized trials that compared the accuracy and/or stability of MdFS with MxFS. The primary endpoint for the meta-analysis was the standardized mean difference in surgical accuracy for translational movements, with a secondary focus on rotational accuracy.
resultsA total of 11 studies encompassing 712 patients met the inclusion criteria. The analysis suggested that MdFS might reduce accuracy in the sagittal dimension (CI, 0.05 to 0.74) but offered greater achievability in the vertical direction (CI, - 0.47 to - 0.07). Additionally, MdFS was associated with a relatively posterior (CI, - 1.18 to - 0.60) and inferior (CI, - 0.64 to - 0.07) positioning of the maxillomandibular complex.
conclusionDespite certain limitations, our findings indicate that MdFS can achieve clinical outcomes similar to MxFS in terms of both accuracy and stability. However, further researches with larger sample sizes and more rigorous study designs are necessary to validate these conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39394541What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.