Does systemic steroid use affect the length of hospital stay for head and neck infections?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review to perform a meta-analysis to investigate the outcomes of head and neck infections treated with systemic steroids. STUDY DESIGN: The protocol was registered to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on August 24, 2020. The studies were compiled using PubMed/Medline with a single reviewer from their inception until August 17, 2020. The studies were uploaded onto Convidence.org, and a repeat search was conducted and uploaded on August 17, 2021. Two independent reviewers (J.S. and S.H.) blinded to each other's assessments reviewed the title and/or abstract for inclusion. After a first pass, full-text reviews of the articles were assessed (J.S. and K.F.) for study inclusion. Data were extracted from the steroid (test) and nonsteroid (control) cohorts. RESULTS: The initial search of key terms yielded 2,711 studies. Titles and abstracts were reviewed, and only cohort and/or cross-sectional studies with the relevant study groups and the relevant outcomes were retrieved for the filtration system. The 2 reviewers reviewed 188 full-text studies, and 3 studies met the inclusion criteria. Although all 3 studies included the mean length of stay for the treatment and a control group, only 2 studies included the confidence interval, and only 1 included P values. Overall, the studies presented insufficient data to pool outcomes and ran a statistical analysis for meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Steroid use reduced the length of stay in 2 studies and increased the length of stay in another larger study. Given the lack of data to perform a meta-analysis, more studies need to be conducted, with a prospective randomized control trial design being essential for guiding evidence-based practice regarding the use of steroids in head and neck infections.

Opioid-Prescribing Patterns in Connecticut and New Jersey Following Third Molar Extractions.

OBJECTIVE: In recent years, opioid misuse has resulted in much scrutiny on providers' prescribing habits. The purpose of this study was to analyze prescribing habits in the context of third molar extractions as a model for promoting better postsurgical pain management. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of oral maxillofacial surgeons in Connecticut and New Jersey. A total of 291 practitioners were contacted to complete an online survey using Qualtrics Research Services to determine prescribing habits following third molar extractions. RESULTS: The most common approach for postoperative analgesia was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and an opioid/acetaminophen (APAP) combination as 2 separate prescriptions, reported by 36% of participants. The combination of hydrocodone/APAP was the most common opioid formulation, and an average of 10.93 ± 4.51 opioid pills were prescribed with a maximum of 20 pills reported. Most providers (79%) consistently provided patients with opioid information. Only 22% reported always checking opioid-monitoring programs; however, providers were more likely to check if prescribing more than ∼11 opioid pills (P = .0228). Most reported using dexamethasone (82%) and bupivacaine (56%) intraoperatively, while ketorolac was less common (15%). No association was found between the quantity of opioids prescribed and the use of intraoperative ketorolac, steroids, or bupivacaine (P > .05). CONCLUSION: There remains to be a universal standard for using opioids for postoperative pain management in dentistry. Providers should be mindful when prescribing opioids and consider using NSAIDs and APAP for baseline pain plus a separate opioid prescription for breakthrough pain. Additional focus on minimizing the quantity of opioids prescribed and self-reflecting on prescribing and practice habits to further reduce opioid-related complications is warranted.

Are we training oral and maxillofacial surgeons in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures?

OBJECTIVE: Oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMS) are well trained in facial anatomy, but exposure to cosmetic procedures in residencies is inconsistent due to several factors, including the patient population, technique, and cost. The primary objective of the present study was to identify an association with exposure to treatment modality in residency with likelihood to perform these procedures in practice. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey distributed to practicing OMS in the United States. Links to the online survey were distributed using communications from local, state, and regional OMS surgery societies. Information was gathered on clinical practice and training during and after residency. The study outcome was whether the respondent performed injectables (dermal fillers or neuromodulators) in their practice. RESULTS: A total of 150 responses were included in the study sample, and no responses were excluded. Only 42.7% of respondents reported performing injectables. Just 37% of respondents stated they had had an opportunity to perform these procedures as a resident, suggesting that 5.7% did not perform injectables until they started practice. Dual-degree training, additional fellowship training, and practical and didactic continuing education training were all associated with higher likelihoods of having an injectable practice. Injectable exposure in residency did not significantly affect the prevalence of having an injectable practice. CONCLUSIONS: OMS who performed injectables were more likely to seek additional forms of training outside of residency. Educators should reevaluate the way that they are approaching cosmetics procedures in residency.

Factors Affecting Outcomes of Craniofacial Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: This study aims to provide a cross-sectional view of craniofacial trials and to identify factors associated with completion, publication, and trial longevity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of cleft and craniofacial clinical trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov between September 1999 and April 2020. Predictor variables included funding source, trial design, trial location, number of recruitment sites, and investigator specialty.Study outcomes were completion status, publication status, and trial duration. Univariate comparisons and multivariate regression models were calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: The final sample included 179 clinical trials pertaining to craniofacial care. Nearly all trials were single-center (86.5%), and roughly half of trials were interventional (57.0%) or conducted in the United States (40.5%). No single specialty predominated, although plastic surgery (13.4%) was the most common investigator specialty. The completion rate was 82.7%, the publication rate was 40.8%, and the mean trial duration was 39.1 months. Interventional design (odds ratio = 0.30, P = 0.02) and United States location (odds ratio = 0.15, P < 0.01) were each independently associated with lower odds of trial completion. Trial longevity was independently associated with the National Institute of Health-funding (P < 0.01) and multicenter design (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Craniofacial trials are multidisciplinary and have a high rate of completion. Although most existing trials were conducted at only a single-center, multicenter efforts significantly increased trial longevity without compromising completion and publication rates. Given the diverse array of conditions and lines of inquiry that compose craniofacial care, it is reassuring that collaboration did not negatively affect trial outcomes.

Is Weekend Presentation Associated With Odontogenic Infection Severity?

PURPOSE: Many dental infections that otherwise could be treated in-office are directly referred to emergency departments (ED) outside of normal business hours. This study sought to determine if odontogenic infections presenting to EDs were less severe on the weekends. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of the 2014 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample. All patients with the primary diagnosis of an oral soft tissue infection were included in the study sample. The primary study predictor was day of presentation. The study outcome was inpatient admission from the ED. A multivariate regression model was created for ED admission rate to identify independent predictors. RESULTS: A total of 6,560 records were included in the final sample. Overall, 34.8% of encounters occurred on the weekend, and these patients were more likely to have private insurance and reside in higher income locations. The unadjusted ED admission rate (9.4 vs 13.4%, P < .01) was lower for patients evaluated on the weekend. The multiple regression model confirmed that weekend presentation was associated with a significantly lower odds of admission (OR = 0.69, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Weekend odontogenic infections were less severe than those presenting on the weekdays. Off-hour dental emergencies remain a potential source of ED waste and should be scrutinized in any reforms seeking to reduce unnecessary emergency room encounters.

The Past Decade in Courts, What Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery Should Know About Facial Cosmetic Surgery.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to examine medical malpractice in facial cosmetic surgery procedures to characterize factors that determine legal liability and help make the oral-maxillofacial surgeon (OMS) more comfortable with treating this patient population. METHODS: The Thomson Reuters Westlaw Edge is a subscription-based legal database that contains decisional law and other data from a variety of state and federal court records. The database was queried for medical malpractice cases involving facial surgical cosmetic procedures from 2010 to 2020. RESULTS: A total of 763 malpractice cases were identified through the search. After removing duplicates, 758 malpractice cases were hand reviewed based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 55 cases met criteria for inclusion. Verdict decisions and settlements occurred in the years of 2010 to 2019. Of those 55 cases, the highest concentration of cases occurred in New York (14), California (10) and Pennsylvania (6). Seventy-four percent of the verdicts were in favor of the defendant, 4% of cases settled and 22% of cases were decided in favor of the plaintiff. The minimum award of damages was $8,597.71 with the maximum of $4,150,000.00 (mean: $72,1915.69 ± $1,131,245.94). The provider's primary specialty was most often plastic and reconstructive surgery (84%), followed by ophthalmology (7%), dermatology (3%) and ENT (4%). CONCLUSION: While it is comforting to know that 74% of malpractice cases in the last decade were found in favor of the surgeon, it is important to realize how devastating the litigation experience can be for a medical practitioner. The best defense to a malpractice case is to avoid one altogether. Learning from past mistakes is one way of ensuring that goal.

Grafting in Modern Rhinoplasty.

Rhinoplasty is considered one of the most technically difficult surgical procedures because of the limited access and requirement for three-dimensional visual perception and manipulation. Grafting is an essential part of primary and secondary rhinoplasties and forms the foundation for a successful functional and aesthetic outcome. Septal cartilage is the most commonly used grafting material, although many reliable alternatives exist. No randomized clinical trials have been conducted comparing graft materials and techniques for specific indications. In this review, the authors discuss the most common grafting materials and configurations used in the modern rhinoplasty.