Significance of Microbial Analysis during Removal of Miniplates at Infected Sites in the Craniomaxillofacial Region - An Evaluative Study

Complications following miniplate insertion in maxillofacial fractures: a systematic review

Background

Maxillofacial fractures, frequently arising from road traffic incidents, falls, and acts of interpersonal aggression, are a considerable public health issue, exhibiting diverse epidemiological patterns according to demographic factors. The application of miniplates for fracture stabilization is a recognized technique, with innovative methods such as 3D plate systems emerging. Nonetheless, consequences including infections and hardware malfunctions persist. This systematic review seeks to present current evidence regarding the complications linked to miniplate placement in maxillofacial fractures over the last ten years.

Methods

A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA principles. Databases such as the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Scopus were examined from September 2014 to September 2024. Studies documenting problems related to miniplate placement were included, without language constraints. The ROBINS-I tool was utilized for non-randomized studies, whereas the Cochrane risk of bias tool was applied to randomized controlled trials.

Results

From 2,289 initially found studies, 56 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Among these, 28 employed interventional designs, whilst the remaining 28 were observational research. The predominant problems documented in several investigations encompassed infection, wound dehiscence, malocclusion, paraesthesia, malunion/non-union, segment movement, hardware failure, and palpable hardware. Advanced methodologies such as 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms were linked to diminished complication rates.

Conclusion

This systematic analysis presents a decade of updated research about problems associated with miniplate placement in maxillofacial fractures. Novel methodologies such as 3D plate systems and locking mechanisms demonstrate promise in mitigating problems relative to conventional techniques. These findings can facilitate informed decision-making in clinical practice. Additional study utilizing standardized outcomes and prospective designs is essential to enhance comprehension of the long-term effects of miniplate utilization.

Infection Rates of an Intraoral Versus Extraoral Approach to Mandibular Fracture Repairs are Equal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This study investigates whether the intraoral approach to mandibular open reduction and internal fixation, through exposure to the oral cavity's microbiome, results in higher infection rates compared to the extraoral approach, thus addressing a critical public health concern, potentially offering an opportunity to reduce health-care costs, and aiming to guide effective clinical practice.

METHODS

In this systematic review with meta-analyses, a review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed for articles published between 1989 and 2023. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on open reduction and internal fixation mandibular fractures comparing intraoral and extraoral approaches and reporting infection rates. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-English articles, case reports, and studies with insufficient approach-specific data. The primary outcome was the postoperative infection rate, with surgical approach as the predictor. Covariates such as age, sex, diabetes, and smoking status were included when reported. Data were analyzed using R software, employing random-effects models due to anticipated heterogeneity (I2 statistics).

RESULTS

From 61 studies, 11 provided direct comparisons involving 1,317 patients-937 intraoral and 380 extraoral. Infection rates were 5.9% for intraoral and 10% for extraoral approaches. Pooled relative risk was 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.63, 1.39], suggesting no significant risk difference. Prevalence of infections was estimated at 9% for intraoral and 6.1% for extraoral procedures, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 84% for intraoral and 56% for extraoral).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis found no significant difference in infection rates between the two approaches. There is opportunity to expand on reporting complication rates comparing the various approaches to mandibular fixation. Until these data are presented, surgeon preference may dictate the operative approach to expose the mandible for reduction and fixation.