Review of Diet Protocols Following Orthognathic Surgery and Analysis of Postoperative Weight Loss.

INTRODUCTION: Orthognathic surgery is routinely practiced, yet little comparative data exists to evaluate post-orthognathic surgery diet protocols. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which postoperative diet protocols are recommended and to quantify post-orthognathic surgery weight changes in our institutional cohort. METHODS: An internet search was carried out on Google for "orthognathic surgery diet" and the postoperative diet recommendations from centers worldwide were quantified. Additionally, a retrospective analysis of patients that underwent orthognathic surgery at our institution was performed, and their preoperative and postoperative weights were recorded. RESULTS: The internet search yielded 58 centers that met our inclusion criteria. Most centers were in the United States (n = 37, 63.8%) and were oral and maxillofacial surgeon (OMFS)-led centers (n = 39, 67.2%). Postoperative diets were categorized into 7 distinct protocols, ranging from most to least restrictive-the most popular was liquid diet for 2 to 4 weeks followed by soft diet for 2 to 6 weeks. There were no significant patterns observed across different geographical regions or specialties.In our institution, 135 patients were identified. Overall, there was an average maximum weight loss of 4.1 kg by week 4, followed by a gradual increase in weight. Linear regression analysis showed that patients with greater preoperative body mass index (BMI) lost more weight postoperatively than patients with lower BMI (R2 = 0.25, P < .001). CONCLUSION: There is a significant variability in recommended postoperative diets following orthognathic surgery. Following a moderately restrictive diet at our institution, patients returned to their preoperative weight after approximately 4 months.

Obstetrical brachial plexus palsy: Can excision of upper trunk neuroma and nerve grafting improve function in babies with adequate elbow flexion at nine months of age?

Accepted indications for exploration in obstetrical brachial plexus palsy (OBPP) vary by center. Most agree that full elbow flexion against gravity at nine months of age implies high chance of spontaneous recovery and thus excludes a baby from surgical intervention. However, there are certain movements of the shoulder and forearm that may not be used frequently by the infant, but are extremely important functionally as they grow. These movements are difficult to assess in a baby and may lead to some clinicians to recommend conservative treatment, when this cohort of infants may in fact benefit substantially from surgery. A retrospective review was conducted on all infants managed surgically at the Brachial Plexus Center of a major children's hospital from 2009 to 2014. Further analysis identified five patients who had near-normal AMS scores for elbow flexion but who had weakness of shoulder abduction, flexion, external rotation, and/or forearm supination. In contrast to standard conservative management, this cohort underwent exploration, C5-6 neuroma excision, and sural nerve grafting. Data analysis was performed on this group to look for overall improvement in function. During an average follow-up period of 29 months, all patients made substantial gains in motor function of the shoulder and forearm, without loss of elbow flexion or extension, or worsening of overall outcome. In select infants with brachial plexus injuries but near-normal AMS scores for elbow flexion, surgical intervention may be indicated to achieve the best functional outcome.

Antibiotic Use in Primary Palatoplasty: A Survey of Practice Patterns, Assessment of Efficacy, and Proposed Guidelines for Use.

BACKGROUND: The literature provides no guidelines for antibiotic use in palatoplasty. The authors sought to ascertain practice patterns; review a large, single-surgeon experience, and propose guidelines for antibiotic use in primary palatoplasty. METHODS: A six-question survey was e-mailed to all surgeons of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. A retrospective study was also conducted of the senior author's 10-year primary palatoplasty series, and two groups were studied. Group 1 received no antibiotics. Group 2 received preoperative and/or postoperative antibiotics. RESULTS: Three hundred twelve of 1115 surgeons (28 percent) responded to the survey. Eighty-five percent administered prophylactic antibiotics, including 26 percent who used a single preoperative dose. A further 23 percent gave 24 hours of postoperative therapy; 12 percent used 25 to 72 hours, 16 percent used 4 to 5 days, and 12 percent used 6 to 10 days. Five percent of surgeons administered penicillin, 64 percent administered a first-generation cephalosporin, 13 percent administered ampicillin/sulbactam, and 8 percent gave clindamycin. The authors reviewed 311 patients; 173 receive antibiotics and 138 did not. Delayed healing and fistula rates did not differ between groups: 16.8 percent versus 15.2 percent (p = 0.71) and 2.9 percent versus 1.4 percent (p = 0.47), respectively. A single patient treated without antibiotics developed a postoperative bacteremia. This case did not meet the Centers for Disease Control definition of a surgical site infection, but the patient developed a palatal fistula. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic use in primary palatoplasty varies widely. The authors' data support a clinician's choice to forego antibiotic use; however, given the significance of palatal fistulae and the single case of postoperative streptococcal bacteremia, the study group recommends a single preoperative dose of ampicillin/sulbactam. Current evidence cannot justify the use of protracted antibiotic regimens. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

The safe and efficacious use of arch bars in patients during primary and mixed dentition: a challenge to conventional teaching.

BACKGROUND: Erich arch bars facilitate intermaxillary fixation, and traditional teaching questions and often argues against the use of arch bars in patients during primary and mixed dentition. Dental anatomy, risk of tooth avulsion, and potential disruption of developing permanent dentition are reasons cited. This study provides the only outcome data on the use of arch bars in children during primary and mixed dentition. METHODS: Patients in primary and mixed dentition presenting with mandible fractures treated with arch bars from 2000 to 2010 were reviewed. Elements collected included demographics, medical history, fracture management, adverse outcomes, and dental health as determined by a pediatric dentist at follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 154 mandible fractures in 79 patients were identified, with 23 patients (48 fractures) meeting inclusion criteria. Average age at injury was 9.10 years (range, 2.70 to 13.49 years), and average follow-up was 32.35 months (range, 0.43 to 131.84 months). Fracture types included condylar head (n = 9), condylar neck (n = 12), angle (n = 10), body (n = 4), and parasymphysis (n = 13) fractures. There were no periodontal defects, tooth avulsions, or disturbances to permanent dentition noted with regard to arch bar use. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that arch bars can be safely used in children during primary and mixed dentition with no periodontal defects, tooth avulsions, or disturbances to permanent dentition. Despite traditional teaching, the authors demonstrate arch bar use to be efficacious and safe in children during primary or mixed dentition. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.