Lingual nerve injury in association with sagittal ramus osteotomy and bicortical screw fixation: a review of 523 procedures in 262 subjects

Prevalence of lingual sensory impairment following bilateral sagittal split osteotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Our study aims to estimate the prevalence of lingual nerve injury following bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO).

METHODS

Two reviewers independently conducted a systematic literature search in the Medline and Scopus databases. The pooled prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was estimated, and quality assessment, outlier analysis, and influential analysis were performed.

RESULTS

In total, eleven eligible studies comprising a total of 1,882 participants were included in this meta-analysis. One study was identified as critically influential. The overall prevalence of lingual sensory impairment was estimated to be as high as 0.1% (95% CI 0.0%-0.6%) with moderate heterogeneity observed between studies.

CONCLUSION

It is important for healthcare professionals to be aware of this issue, despite the relatively low rate of lingual nerve deficit after BSSO. Additional research will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying factors contributing to lingual nerve injury, leading to improved preventive measures and treatment strategies. Furthermore, insights gained from future studies will enable healthcare professionals to inform patients about the potential complications and manage their expectations before undergoing BSSO.

Objective Assessment of Lingual Nerve Microsurgical Reconstruction

Lingual nerve (LN) injury is one of the most serious consequences of oral surgery. Prompt microsurgical reconstruction of the nerve can alleviate most of those symptoms leading to satisfactory functional recovery.Thirty-five patients with partial to complete LN injury underwent surgery in the period between January 2006 and May 2015. All patients underwent a preoperative clinical and neurological evaluation with the assessment of lingual tactile and pain sensory thresholds and masseteric inhibitory reflex.All patients underwent explorative surgery and direct microneurorrhaphy of distal and proximal stumps in case of complete lesion, while the removal of traumatic neuroma and the following microneurorrhaphy of distal and proximal stumps of the injured nerve was performed in case of incomplete lesion. Nerve grafting has always been avoided because of distal stump mobilization obtained by severing the submandibular branch of the LN.All patients but 1 exhibited good recovery of tongue sensation, never complete, both clinically and electrophysiologically: recovery of the excitability of masseteric inhibitory reflex suppression components SP1 and SP2 was observed, often with increased latencies but consistent with a functional recovery.All patients feeling pain preoperatively experienced complete relief of algic symptoms.The early microsurgical approach is the most suitable choice for the treatment of LN injuries.

Method of osteotomy fixation and need for removal following bimaxillary orthognathic, osseous genioplasty, and intranasal surgery: a retrospective cohort study

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and causes of fixation hardware removal after bimaxillary orthognathic, osseous genioplasty, and intranasal surgery. A retrospective study was performed, involving subjects with a bimaxillary developmental dentofacial deformity (DFD) and symptomatic chronic obstructive nasal breathing. At a minimum, subjects underwent Le Fort I osteotomy, bilateral sagittal ramus osteotomies (SROs), septoplasty, inferior turbinate reduction, and osseous genioplasty. The primary outcome variable studied was fixation hardware removal. Demographic, anatomical, and surgical predictor variables were assessed. Two hundred sixty-two subjects met the inclusion criteria. Their mean age at operation was 25 years (range 13-63 years); 134 were female (51.1%). Simultaneous removal of a third molar was performed in 39.9% of SROs. Three of 262 Le Fort I procedures (1.1%) and two of 524 SROs (0.4%) required hardware removal. There were four cases of ramus wound dehiscence, four of ramus surgical site infection (SSI), one of chin SSI, two of maxillary sinusitis, and one of lingual nerve injury; none of these subjects underwent hardware removal. A limited need for fixation hardware removal after orthognathic procedures was confirmed. There was no statistical correlation between hardware removal and patient sex, age, pattern of DFD, simultaneous removal of a third molar, or occurrence of wound dehiscence, SSI, or lingual nerve injury.