Risk of complications in panfacial bone fracture according to surgeons: A meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundPanfacial bone fractures pose intricate challenges due to severe fragmentation and loss of landmarks. Surgeons use a variety of reduction techniques, including bottom-up and top-down approaches. This single proportional meta-analysis explores sequencing differences and complications between oal and maxillofacial Surgery surgeons (OMSs) and plastic and reconstructive surgeons (PRSs) in treating panfacial bone fractures. MethodsThe PubMed and Scopus databases were searched systematically, and we compiled fourteen studies published between 2007 and 2023 involving 1238 patients. A systematic review of the included studies was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and data on the reduction techniques; total complication rates; and rates of malocclusion, enophthalmos, infection, asymmetry, and aesthetic complications were collected. ResultsThe bottom-up technique was the most prevalent for both types of surgeons (57.1%, 8 out of 14). Malocclusion rates (I2=0% for OMSs and 41% for PRSs) were similar between the groups (p=0.72), but PRSs tended to have a lower enophthalmos rate (I2=0% for OMSs and 32% for PRSs) than OMSs (p < 0.01). Infection rates remained consistent across all studies. However, high heterogeneity was observed for the total complication rate (I2=94% for OMSs and 85% for PRSs) and asymmetry and aesthetic complications (I2=88% for OMSs and 92% for PRSs), making direct comparison between the two groups inconclusive. ConclusionsIn this study, the differences in surgical techniques and levels of interest have a greater impact on the outcomes of panfacial bone fracture than the surgeon’s specialty. However, more in-depth studies are needed to accurately pinpoint panfacial bone fracture reduction trends and differences in postoperative complications in the two expert groups.