Ambulatory sagittal split ramus osteotomy: strategy for enhanced recovery after surgery

Comparison between one-jaw and two-jaw designs in virtual surgery planning for patients with class III malocclusion

Orthognathic surgery is highly effective for treating maxillomandibular discrepancies in patients with class III malocclusion. However, whether one- or two-jaw surgery should be selected remains controversial. Our study aimed to evaluate quantitative differences between one-jaw and two-jaw surgical designs. In total, 100 consecutive patients with skeletal class III malocclusion who underwent orthognathic surgery with preoperative three-dimensional simulation between August 2016 and November 2021 were recruited. Based on the same final occlusal setup, a two-jaw surgery design and two types of one-jaw design were created. In total, 400 image sets, including preoperative images and three types of surgical simulation, were measured and compared. The one-jaw mandibular setback design led to improvement in most cephalometric measurements and facial symmetry. Although the one-jaw maxillary advancement design improved the ANB angle and facial convexity, it induced maxillary protrusion and reduced facial symmetry. Compared with the other designs, the two-jaw design provided significantly closer cephalometric measurements to the normative values, better symmetry, and less occlusal cant. Overall, the two-jaw design provided a quantitatively better facial appearance in terms of symmetry, proportion, and profile. Although an optimal surgical design necessitates thorough preoperative evaluation and a shared decision-making process, two-jaw surgery can be considered for improving overall facial esthetics and harmony.

Does osteotomizing the lower border of the mandible affect the lingual split pattern in a sagittal split ramus osteotomy?

AIM

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of adding a fourth osteotomy at the lower border of the mandible on the lingual cortical fracture pattern in bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomies.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The sample of the study consisted of 20 patients (12 male and 8 female, with a mean age of 26.79 ± 7.12 years) with mandibular deformities who needed bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy. One side underwent a traditional sagittal split ramus osteotomy, and the procedure was modified on the other side by adding a 1 cm horizontal osteotomy at the lower border of the mandible, just distal to the caudal end of the vertical buccal osteotomy cut. A 3D CBCT was used to identify the split pattern.

RESULTS

In the total sample, 40% of the lingual splits ran vertically toward the lower border of the mandible (LSS1), 20% of the splits passed horizontally to the posterior border of the mandible (LSS2), 32.5% of the splits took place along the inferior alveolar canal (LSS3), and 7.5% of the splits were unfavourable fractures (LSS4). On the inferior border osteotomy sides, the distribution of LSS1, LSS2, LSS3, and LSS4 was 10 (25%), 6 (15%), 4 (10%), and 0 (00), respectively. Their distribution on the sides without inferior border osteotomy was 6 (15%), 8 (20%), 13 (32.5%), and 3 (7.5%), respectively. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Inferior border osteotomy tends to direct the lingual split fracture line toward the lower and posterior borders of the mandible and minimizes bad splits; however, further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Outpatient orthognathic surgery: a prospective study of predictive factors for the length of hospital stays

OBJECTIVES

Transitioning from non-outpatient orthognathic surgery to outpatient surgery is a new challenge, and it is essential to target the eligible population as precisely as possible. Several authors describe series of outpatient orthognathic surgery but do not include the reasons for their success or failure. The main aim of this study was to identify the factors significantly associated with "successful" outpatient orthognathic treatment. The secondary objective was to determine the factors significantly associated with prolonged hospital stays (≥ 2 nights).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort study including patients undergoing orthognathic surgery was conducted over a period of 1 year. We recorded the prognostic factors that contributed to successful outpatient treatment and prolonged hospital stays. These factors were evaluated by bivariate and multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 102 patients were included, and the success rate of treatment was 65%. The variables that were isolated by multivariate analysis were: patients over the age of 22, procedures ending before 1 pm, brief operations, the absence of both postoperative vomiting and the administration of morphine.

CONCLUSION

Patient selection, organisation of outpatient facilities and anaesthetic protocols contribute to the development of outpatient orthognathic surgery. These initial considerations provide a framework for our practice, but the considerations that predict the failure of outpatient surgery will need to be clarified.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Orthognathic surgery can be performed on outpatient basis in selected cases. Age, the operative time, procedure end time, postoperative vomiting and the administration of morphine are associated with the success of outpatient care.