Piezosurgery for Sagittal Split Osteotomy: Procedure Duration and Postoperative Sensory Perturbation

Köhnke, Robert; Kolk, Andreas; Ploder, Oliver

doi:10.1016/j.joms.2017.05.003

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…26,27 Four studies were evaluated using the Cochrane instruments (Table 4). 13,25,35,38 Eight studies were included in the metaanalysis examining operating time. 24,26,27,30,39,42,43,47 The study by Chaichana et al 16 was not included, as it was not comparative in nature, whereas Shirota et al 41 was not included, as insufficient data were present for a meta-analysis (Table 3).…”

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analysis investigating sensory disturbance. 13,[25][26][27]32,33,35,[38][39][40][41][42][43] Brockmeyer and colleagues 15 were excluded, as they did not have numerical patient level data in their study amenable to meta-analysis (Table 3). In addition, Geha et al 19 and Nordera et al 34 were excluded, as their studies were noncomparative (Table 3).…”

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24,47 Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis examining osteotomy time. 12,13,24,25,30,31,33,45 The study by Ramieri et al 37 was not included, as it was a noncomparative study. Meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in osteotomy time when comparing piezosurgery to conventional bonecutting methods (mean difference, 0.35; 95 percent CI, −2.99 to 3.68; p = 0.84) (Fig.…”

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,30,31,33 Four of the eight studies were evaluated using the Cochrane instruments (Table 4). 13,24,25,45 Seven studies were included in the metaanalysis examining postoperative pain. 17,24,30,35,[38][39][40] The study by Tirelli et al 45 was omitted from the meta-analysis, as insufficient patient level data were reported; however, they did find postoperative pain was reduced when piezosurgery was Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery • January 2022 used compared to conventional methods in rhinoplasty (p < 0.05) (Table 3).…”

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

McGuire

Boudreau

Prabhu

et al. 2021

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the field of craniofacial surgery has advanced, the need for novel techniques to improve safety and patient outcomes has grown considerably. Historically, clinicians have relied on mechanical chisels, oscillating saws, and rotating burrs to perform osteotomies. 1 Although able to successfully cut bone, these techniques have the potential pitfalls of increased risk of osteonecrosis, impaired bone regeneration, and more. 1,2 To prevent the morbidity associated with conventional bone-cutting modalities, Vercellotti 3 introduced piezosurgery in 1988. Piezosurgery is a bone-cutting technique that takes advantage of electrical current that moves ceramics inside a device that then leads to ultrasonic oscillation of a vibrating insert that is applied to bone. The bone is broken down and suctioned from the surgical area to decrease heat generation and prevent mechanical injury. 4,5 The characteristics of the piezosurgery microvibrations allow for precise cutting of mineralized structures and prevent damaging underlying soft tissue and vasculature. 3 This increased precision can lead to not only better surgical outcomes but also improved cosmesis as well because of decreased bleeding and

show abstract

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Measures and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

McGuire

Boudreau

Prabhu

et al. 2021

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These rotating instruments can be potentially injurious as the production of excessively high temperatures can impair bone regeneration and result in bone necrosis. [ 1 2 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Piezo-osteotomy in orthognathic surgery: A comparative clinical study

Raj

Singh

Shah

2022

Natl J Maxillofac Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: After the clinical introduction of ultrasound scalpel in recent years, piezosurgery has become competitive with conventional instruments in orthognathic procedures to reduce the operative and postoperative complications reported to occur in association with these surgeries. Aims: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of both piezoelectric device and the traditional bur technique in orthognathic surgery. Intraoperative bleeding time, operative time, postoperative swelling, and neurological impairment were evaluated. Materials and Methods: In this study, a split-mouth technique was applied on ten patients requiring orthognathic surgery. To make the osteotomy cuts, on the one side, piezo-osteotome was used, and on the other side, conventional osteotomy bur was used. Results: Duration of osteotomy was found to be greater with piezo osteotomy compared to bur osteotomy. Mild bleeding was observed with piezosurgery. Postoperative swelling was greater on the side of piezosurgery compared to the bur side. Altered neurosensory activity was found to be equal on the 1 st day postoperatively, but the piezo side recovered faster compared to the bur side in the 1 st month after surgery. Conclusion: Piezoelectric device offers better advantages over the conventional bur in orthognathic surgery and hence can be considered an alternative to the bur in some orthognathic procedures.

show abstract

Cold Ablation Robot-Guided Laser Osteotome (CARLO®): Technology and Clinical Application in Maxillofacial Surgery and Reconstruction

Ettl

Morawska²,

Jürgens³

2023

Advancements and Innovations in OMFS, ENT, and Facial Plastic Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Piezosurgery for Sagittal Split Osteotomy: Procedure Duration and Postoperative Sensory Perturbation

Abstract: Piezoelectric osteotomy requires considerably less time than conventional mechanical approaches, but shows no advantage in preventing neurosensory perturbation.

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Piezo-osteotomy in orthognathic surgery: A comparative clinical study

Cold Ablation Robot-Guided Laser Osteotome (CARLO®): Technology and Clinical Application in Maxillofacial Surgery and Reconstruction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About