Systematic review of thromboprophylaxis in patients having orthognathic surgery

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Maxillofacial Surgery

The aim of this article is to conduct a literature review concerning the need for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among patients undergoing maxillofacial surgery. This article addresses the diagnosis of VTE, patient risk stratification, and prophylactic measures suitable for the various groups of interest in maxillofacial surgery. From a pool of 44 articles identified, nine were chosen as the most pertinent to the aims of this review. Despite limited data on this topic, individuals undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery generally exhibit a low risk of VTE. This review emphasizes the importance of implementing prophylactic measures tailored to individual risk factors. Pharmacological prophylaxis merits consideration, particularly when the Caprini score is ≥7. However, further research is needed to optimize prophylactic strategies in maxillofacial surgery.

Exploring the relationship between the number of systematic reviews and quality of evidence: an orthognathic surgery-based study

OBJECTIVE

We analyzed the quality and quantity of systematic reviews (SRs) of orthognathic surgery, the most frequently published topic in maxillofacial surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

We searched the PubMed database for SRs of orthognathic surgery with no restriction on the language of publication date. We assessed the certainty of evidence presented according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and the Leiden Manifesto using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We analyzed the data using descriptive statistics, Pearson´s correlation test, and linear regression.

RESULTS

Of the 171 SRs evaluated, approximately one fifth presented evidence with a high level of certainty. The number of orthognathic surgery SRs has been increasing, and many SRs were published after very similar topics had already been published. There is no relationship between the impact factor and the certainty of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

An excessive number of SRs of orthognathic surgery are published, and many SRs are superfluous, simply reporting previous findings. Clinicians should not base treatment decisions solely on the evidence presented in SRs, and journal editors and reviewers should evaluate these SRs more critically, particularly when they address topics that have already been covered in the literature.

Systematic mapping review of orthognathic surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic mapping review AIM AND SCOPE: The objective of this mapping review was to identify, describe, and organize clinical research currently available from systematic reviews and primary studies regarding co-interventions and different surgical modalities used in orthognathic surgery (OS) and their outcomes.

METHODS

Systematic reviews (SRs), randomized controlled trials, and observational studies that evaluated perioperative OS co-interventions and surgical modalities were identified in an exhaustive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Lilacs, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. Grey literature was also screened.

RESULTS

Included were 35 SRs and 253 primary studies, 103 from SRs, and another 150 identified in our search. Overall, SR quality was rated as critically low, with only two SRs rated as of high quality. 19 questions on population, interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (PICO) extracted from the SRs focused on osteosynthesis methods, surgical cutting devices, and use of antibiotics, corticosteroids, and induced hypotension. Also identified were 15 research gaps. Evidence bubble maps were created to graphically depict the available evidence.

CONCLUSION

Future high-quality research, both primary and secondary, is needed to address the knowledge gaps identified in this systematic mapping review.