Literature DB >> 10364971

Impact of third molar removal on demands for postoperative care and job disruption: does anaesthetic choice make a difference?

D J Edwards1, J Horton, J P Shepherd, M R Brickley.   

Abstract

A prospective cohort study was undertaken to investigate the influences of anaesthetic modality and surgical difficulty on social reintegration and demands on health services after third molar removal. The study was undertaken at the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Cardiff Dental Hospital. Of 444 patients, 266 (60%) had their third molars removed. The main outcome measures included anaesthetic modality, surgical difficulty (WHARFE scores), utilisation of health services, effects on work, school and home life. In all, 101 (40%) patients were treated under local anaesthesia (LA) +/- intravenous (i.v.) sedation and 165 (60%) under general anaesthesia (GA); 81 (49%) as inpatients and 84 (51%) as day cases. Of these patients, 38 (14%) returned to the hospital and 74 (28%) utilised primary care services postoperatively in addition to a standard review appointment. Patients treated under GA made more demands on primary care services (chi 2 = 6.41, df = 2, P < 0.05) and took more time away from work (P < 0.05). Patients underestimated the time they needed to recover. There was similar disruption to job, college and home life. There were no links between disruption and particular anaesthetic modalities and surgical difficulty. Surgery under GA was linked to increased postoperative demands on primary care, but not secondary care, and to longer job disruption. This could not fully be attributed to surgical difficulty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10364971      PMCID: PMC2503222     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  22 in total

1.  Choice of anaesthetic and healthcare facility for third molar surgery.

Authors:  D J Edwards; M R Brickley; J Horton; M J Edwards; J P Shepherd
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 1.651

2.  Inability to work after surgical removal of mandibular third molars.

Authors:  T I Berge
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 2.331

3.  Routine review of patients after extraction of third molars: is it justified?

Authors:  P M Preshaw; S E Fisher
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.651

4.  UK National Third Molar project: the initial report.

Authors:  S F Worrall; K Riden; R Haskell; A M Corrigan
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 1.651

5.  Clinical consequences of complaints and complications after removal of the mandibular third molar.

Authors:  A V van Gool; J J Ten Bosch; G Boering
Journal:  Int J Oral Surg       Date:  1977-02

6.  Are postoperative review appointments necessary following uncomplicated minor oral surgery?

Authors:  S F Worrall
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 1.651

7.  Controversies in third molar surgery--the national view on review strategies.

Authors:  C A Pratt; M Hekmat; S D Pratt; G A Zaki; J D Barnard
Journal:  Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.651

8.  Agreement between practitioners concerning removal of asymptomatic third molars.

Authors:  O Kostopoulou; M R Brickley; J P Shepherd; K Knutsson; M Rohlin
Journal:  Community Dent Health       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 1.349

9.  Per- and post-operative variables of mandibular third-molar surgery by four general practitioners and one oral surgeon.

Authors:  T I Berge; O T Gilhuus-Moe
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.331

10.  Predictor evaluation of postoperative morbidity after surgical removal of mandibular third molars.

Authors:  T I Berge; O E Bøe
Journal:  Acta Odontol Scand       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 2.331

View more
  3 in total

1.  Cost effectiveness modelling of a 'watchful monitoring strategy' for impacted third molars vs prophylactic removal under GA: an Australian perspective.

Authors:  A A Anjrini; E Kruger; M Tennant
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-07-10       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 2.  Review of Difficulty Indices for Removal of Impacted Third Molars and a New Classification of Difficulty Indices.

Authors:  Sonal Priya Bhansali; Sumit Bhansali; Archit Tiwari
Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg       Date:  2020-10-03

3.  Local vs general anaesthesia in the development of neurosensory disturbances after mandibular third molars extraction: A retrospective study of 534 cases.

Authors:  F Costantinides; M Biasotto; M Maglione; R Di Lenarda
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2016-11-01
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.