RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Given the consequences of delayed treatment and diagnosis of craniosynostosis, this study reviews the literature on sociodemographic risk factors and disparities associated with delayed craniosynostosis treatment. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search of PubMed/Medline and Embase was performed by two independent reviewers. Included studies discussed craniosynostosis health disparities. Demographic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENTS: Patients with craniosynostosis. INTERVENTIONS: Standard surgical intervention for craniosynostosis. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 273 studies, of which 18 were included for analysis. Included studies represented data from 31â 256 U.S. patients with craniosynostosis. Sixty percent of patients (n = 16â 510) were White, 13.8% were Hispanic/Latino, 6.2% were Black/African American, 1.3% were Asian, 0.3% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Average age at surgery was 6.36 months for White patients, 10.63 months for Black patients, and 9.18 months for Hispanic patients. Minority racial and/or ethnic status was a risk factor for delayed presentation, and increased incidence of open surgery, complication rates, hospital charges, operative time, anesthesia duration, and hospital length of stay. Government-funded health insurance was associated with delayed intervention and increased complications. CONCLUSIONS: Minority craniosynostosis patients experience delays in intervention and increased complication rates. Our findings highlight the importance of expedited and equitable referrals, screenings, and treatment, and the need for a standardized approach to investigating longitudinal demographic and outcomes data in this population.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods. METHODS: A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types. Conventional Erich arch bars were compared to hybrid arch bars, MMF screws, and eyelet interdental wiring. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a statistical significance of P < 0.05. RESULTS: Among the 4234 articles identified, 24 were included, and 17 were meta-analyzed. Time to achieve MMF (-43.38 min; 95% CI, -58.20 to -28.56; P < 0.001), total operative time (-30.33 min; 95% CI, -61.05 to 0.39; P = 0.05), incidence of wire puncture injuries and glove perforations (0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.30; P < 0.001), and incidence of poor oral hygiene (0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P < 0.001) were lower for alternative MMF interventions compared to those of the conventional Erich arch bars. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative MMF methods required shorter operative time to achieve MMF and demonstrated other increased efficiencies of practice such as shorter total operative time and decreased glove perforations, when compared to conventional Erich arch bars. If a patient is a candidate for MMF, the presented alternative MMF techniques should be considered depending on the clinical context and availability of institutional resources.