No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose Optimal correction of the cleft nasal deformity remains challenging. The purpose of this study was to examine the practice patterns and postoperative course of patients undergoing cleft lip repair with rhinoplasty compared to those who have primary lip repair without rhinoplasty. Methods and Materials A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on the Kids’ Inpatient Database. Data were collected from January 2000 to December 2011 and included infants aged 12 months and younger who underwent cleft lip repair. The predictor variable was the addition of rhinoplasty at primary cleft lip repair. Primary outcome variables included hospital setting, year, and admission cost, while secondary outcome variables included length of stay and postoperative complication rate. Independent t-tests and chi-squared tests were performed. Continuous variables were analyzed by multiple linear regression models. Results The study sample included 4559 infants with 1422 (31.2%) who underwent primary cleft rhinoplasty. Over time, there was a significant increase in the proportion of cleft lip repairs accompanied by a rhinoplasty ( p < .01). A greater proportion of patients with unilateral cleft lips received simultaneous rhinoplasty with their lip repairs (33.8 vs 26.0% , p < .01). This cohort had a significantly shorter length of stay (1.6 vs 2.8 days , p < .01) when compared to children that underwent cleft lip repair alone. Conclusions Performing primary cleft rhinoplasty is becoming more common among cleft surgeons. Considering comparable costs and complication rates, a rhinoplasty should be considered during the surgical treatment planning of patients with cleft nasal deformities.

No abstract

Background: Many fractures of the mandibular condylar neck are amenable to both open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) and closed treatment. Clinical outcomes following these two modalities remains a topic of debate. This systematic review critically appraises the literature to compare them following these treatment options. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical outcomes in ORIF versus closed treatment of mandibular condyle fractures. The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registries were queried from 1946 to 2020. The quality of evidence was determined using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Results: Of 1507 screened articles, 14 met inclusion criteria. ORIF was favored significantly when evaluating temporomandibular joint pain [relative risk (RR), 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.7] (number needed to treat to prevent an outcome in one patient, 3; 95% CI, 2 to 6), laterotrusive movements of the mandible (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.0) (standardized mean difference, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.4 to 1.3), and malocclusion (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4 to 0.7) (number needed to treat to prevent an outcome in one patient, 19; 95% CI, 10 to 200). However, ORIF yielded a higher incidence of postoperative infection (RR, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.9 to 13.8) and must be weighed against the understood risk of facial nerve injury. Conclusions: Meta-analysis of high-level evidence in randomized controlled trial suggests that ORIF significantly improves functional outcomes, decreases pain, and restores occlusion and jaw symmetry. These long-term benefits must be weighed against the increased risk of postoperative infection and exposure of the facial nerve to potential injury.

No abstract