Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi1, Edward Ellis2. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Thamar University, Thamar, Yemen. Electronic address: dressamalmoraissi@gmail.com. 2. Professor and Chair, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to answer the following question: in patients with nasal bone fractures (NBFs), does closed reduction under local anesthesia (LA) produce comparable outcomes as closed reduction under general anesthesia (GA)? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis and a comprehensive electronic search without date and language restrictions was performed in August 2014. The inclusion criteria were studies in humans, including randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and retrospective studies whose aim was comparing clinical outcomes between LA and GA for closed reduction of NBFs. RESULTS: Eight publications were included: 3 RCTs, 2 CCTs, and 3 retrospective studies. Three studies showed a low risk of bias, and 5 studies showed a moderate risk of bias. There was no statistical difference between LA and GA for closed reduction of NBFs with regard to patient satisfaction with anesthesia, patient satisfaction with function of the nose, need for subsequent retreatment (septoplasty, septorhinoplasty, or rhinoplasty with refracture), and a patient's chosen treatment for a refracture of the nose. There was a statistical difference between LA and GA for closed reduction of NBFs with regard to patient satisfaction with the appearance of the nose. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the cost and risks associated with GA, the results of the meta-analysis showed that GA provides better patient satisfaction with anesthesia, appearance and function of the nose, and preference of treatment for a refracture of the nose. In addition, the meta-analysis showed that GA decreased the number of subsequent corrective surgeries (septoplasty, septorhinoplasty, and rhinoplasty) required.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to answer the following question: in patients with nasal bone fractures (NBFs), does closed reduction under local anesthesia (LA) produce comparable outcomes as closed reduction under general anesthesia (GA)? MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis and a comprehensive electronic search without date and language restrictions was performed in August 2014. The inclusion criteria were studies in humans, including randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and retrospective studies whose aim was comparing clinical outcomes between LA and GA for closed reduction of NBFs. RESULTS: Eight publications were included: 3 RCTs, 2 CCTs, and 3 retrospective studies. Three studies showed a low risk of bias, and 5 studies showed a moderate risk of bias. There was no statistical difference between LA and GA for closed reduction of NBFs with regard to patient satisfaction with anesthesia, patient satisfaction with function of the nose, need for subsequent retreatment (septoplasty, septorhinoplasty, or rhinoplasty with refracture), and a patient's chosen treatment for a refracture of the nose. There was a statistical difference between LA and GA for closed reduction of NBFs with regard to patient satisfaction with the appearance of the nose. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the cost and risks associated with GA, the results of the meta-analysis showed that GA provides better patient satisfaction with anesthesia, appearance and function of the nose, and preference of treatment for a refracture of the nose. In addition, the meta-analysis showed that GA decreased the number of subsequent corrective surgeries (septoplasty, septorhinoplasty, and rhinoplasty) required.