No abstract

The impact of the extent of parotid surgery on postoperative complications has long been considered a topic of controversy. The aim of the current network meta-analysis (NMA) is to answer the following questions: (1) Does the extent of surgical resection of benign parotid tumors increase the risk of postoperative complications? (2) What is the best surgical intervention for treatment of benign parotid tumors that can provide an acceptable balance between tumor recurrence rate and other postoperative complications? A comprehensive search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane library was conducted to identify the eligible studies. The outcome was the incidence of tumor recurrence, facial nerve weakness (temporary [TFW] or permanent [PFP]), Frey's syndrome (FS), sialocele, and salivary fistula. The Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) accompanied by a random effect model and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated using the GeMTC R package. Forty-four studies with a total of 7841 participants were included in the current NMA comparing five surgical interventions, namely enucleation, extracapsular dissection (ECD), partial superficial parotidectomy (PSP), superficial parotidectomy (SP), and total parotidectomy (TP). Enucleation showed the highest recurrence rate compared to ECD, SPS, SP, and TP. No statistical differences were observed concerning the recurrence rate when ECD, PSP, SP, and TP were compared together. There was an increased incidence of TFW and FS with the increase in the extent of parotid resection, while no significant difference was found when comparing enucleation with ECD and PSP. SP showed the highest incidence of PFP, and salivary fistula compared to ECD, PSP, and TP. The tumor recurrence rates in enucleation, ECD, PSP, SP, and TP were 14.3%, 3.6%, 3.7%, 2.8%, and 1.4%, respectively. The current NMA demonstrated that the risk of TFW and FS increases with the increase in the extent of parotid resection and that ECD and PSP can be considered the treatment of choice for benign parotid tumors, as both provide an acceptable balance between the incidence of tumor recurrence and facial nerve dysfunction.

No abstract

Objective The clinical benefits of simultaneous implant placement and soft tissue augmentation using different treatment modalities are unclear. The current meta-analysis aimed to compare the effect of simultaneous soft tissue augmentation using subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) around immediate or delayed dental implant placement with other treatment modalities on the peri-implant tissue health and esthetic. Methods Up to May 2021, four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, and Google Scholar) were searched. Randomized control trials with follow-up >3 months, evaluating simultaneous implant placement (immediate or delayed) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG compared with other treatment modalities were included. The predictor variables were SCTG versus no augmentation with/without guided bone regeneration (GBR) or other augmentation techniques (Acellular dermal matrix (ADM), Xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM). The outcome variables were buccal tissue thickness (BTT), mid-buccal gingival level (MGL), marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic scores (PES). Cumulative mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated. Results Twelve studies were included. SCTG along with immediate implant placement (IIP) or delayed implant placement (DIP) showed a statistically significant improvement in BTT (Fixed; MD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51; 0.97), MGL (Fixed; MD, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.21; 0.80), PES (Fixed; MD, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.29; 1.29), and less MBL (Fixed; MD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.14; -0.08) compared to no graft (P<0.05). A statistically insignificant differences in BTT (Random; MD, 0.62; 95% CI, -0.41; 1.65), MGL (Fixed; MD, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.23; 0.11), MBL (Fixed; MD, 0.36; 95% CI, -0.05; 0.77) and PES (Fixed; MD, 0.28; 95% CI, -0.10; 0.67) was observed when SCTG along with DIP was compared with no augmentation plus GBR. Similarly, no statistically significant difference was observed when comparing SCTG along with DIP with acellular dermal matrix (ADM) concerning BTT (MD:0.71, P = 0.18) and KMW (MD: 0.6, P = 0.19). Conclusion There is a very low quality of evidence to provide recommendations on whether simultaneous dental implant placement (IIP or DIP) and soft tissue augmentation using SCTG is superior to no augmentation or is comparable to the other tissue augmentation materials in improving the quality and quantity of peri-implant tissues. Therefore, further, well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes and long follow-up times are still needed.

No abstract

ObjectiveThe primary aim of this meta-analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in facial nerve dysfunction in studies that compared classical antegrade facial nerve dissection (AFND) versus retrograde facial nerve dissection (RFND) during benign parotid surgery.MethodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Google Scholar, Science Direct and relevant journals was undertaken up to June 27, 2018. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and retrospective studies aimed at comparing the effect of AFND vs. RFND during parotidectomy were included. The outcome measures included facial nerve dysfunction, Frey’s syndrome, recurrence, silaocele, salivary fistula, operating time length of hospital stay, and estimated blood loss. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using either a fixed-effects or random-effects model.ResultsTen studies; four RCTs and five retrospective studies were included. There were 570 patients (319 in RFND group and 251 in AFND group). 481 patients in 9 studies reported the incidence rate of facial nerve dysfunction. No statistical significant difference was observed between both groups concerning the occurrence of transient or permanent facial nerve paralysis (p = 0.44 and 0.11 respectively). One out 10 studies reported the incidence rate of sialocele, however no statistical difference was observed between the two techniques. There was reduction in the operative time (19.30 min), amount of blood loss (25.08 ml) and amount of healthy salivary tissues removed (12.20 mm) in RFND compared with AFND.ConclusionsAccording to the results of the current review there is no evidence demonstrating a significant advantage of one approach over another, therefore, well-designed standardized RCTs are required.

No abstract

Objective An evidence regarding which bony flap for reconstruction of mandibular defects following tumour resection is associated with the highest survival rate is still lacking. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to guide surgeons selecting which vascularized osseous flap is associated with the highest survival rate for mandibular reconstruction. Methods From inception to March 2021, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane library were searched to identify the eligible studies. The outcome variable was the flap survival rate. The Bayesian NMA accompanied by a random effect model and 95% credible intervals (CrI) was calculated. Results Twenty-two studies with a total of 1513 patients, comparing four osseous flaps namely fibula free flap (FFF), deep circumferential iliac artery flap (DCIA), scapula flap, and osteocutaneous radial forearm flap (ORFF) were included. The respective survival rates of FFF, DCIA, Scapula, and ORFF were 94.50%, 93.12%, 97%, and 95.95%. The NMA failed to show a statistically significant difference between all comparators (FFF versus DCIA (Odd ratio, 1.8; CrI, 0.58,5.0); FFF versus ORFF (Odd ratio, 0.57; CrI, 0.077; 2.9); FFF versus scapula flap (Odd ratio, 0.25; CrI, 0.026; 1.5); DCIA versus ORFF (Odd ratio, 0.32; CrI, 0.037; 2.1); DCIA versus scapula flap (Odd ratio, 0.14; CrI, 0.015; 1.1) and ORFF versus scapula flap (Odd ratio, 2.3; CrI, 0.16; 34)). Conclusion Within the limitations of the current NMA, FFF, DCIA, Scapula, and ORFF showed a comparable survival rate for mandibular reconstruction. Although the scapula flap reported the highest survival rate compared to other osseous flaps for mandibular reconstruction; however, the decision making when choosing an osseous flap should be based on many factors rather than simply flap survival rate.