Strategies of Mandibular Revision: A Retrospective Study of Revisional Mandibular Surgery for Unaesthetic Results of Previous Mandibular Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Mandibular reduction has been developed and popularized in Asia for decades. Despite the technical advancement and experience accumulation, complications and unaesthetic results still occur, and some need a revision surgery. This study aims to introduce the experience of revision surgery to reshape the unaesthetic mandibular contour after previous mandibular reduction. METHODS: From May 2011 to September 2017, patients dissatisfied with the result of previous mandibular reduction and who received a secondary mandibular revision were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included in this study. Under-correction (88%, 22/25) was the most common aesthetic problem requiring revision, followed by asymmetry (56%, 14/25), broad chin (40%, 10/25), second mandibular angle (32%, 8/25), and over-correction (8%, 2/25). As revision techniques, long-curve mandibular reduction, simple mandibular reduction, and mandibular grinding were performed on 60% (15/25), 36% (9/25), and 4% (1/25) of the patients, respectively. All the patients were satisfied with the results. Cephalometric measurements indicated a significant bone removal after revision. CONCLUSIONS: When performing a revision surgery to reshape the mandibular contour, the surgeon should have a clear surgical plan based on comprehensive evaluation, focus on the balanced harmony of the entire face, use proper technique and instruments, and avoid concomitant injury and complications. The one-staged technique that treats the whole mandible as an entirety is superior than multistaged techniques to improve the aesthetic outcomes to the largest extent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these evidence-based medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine in preventing community-acquired pneumonia among immunocompetent adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Data on the efficacy of the 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPV-23) in preventing adult community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) among the target population of individuals aged over 65 years and high-risk individuals aged 19-64 years are conflicting. As the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) has recently demonstrated PPV-23 is likely beneficial to immunocompromised adults by the Grading, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, we conducted meta-analysis to examine its efficacy in an immunocompetent population. METHODS: We searched the PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized trials. Overall relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidential intervals (CIs) were calculated, and the Cochrane Q test (p, I(2)) was performed. Outcomes were assessed by the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Seven randomized trials involving 156,010 participants were included in this meta-analysis. High-quality evidence revealed that PPV-23 was weakly associated with the prevention of all-cause pneumonia ([RR] 0.87, [95%CI] 0.76-0.98, p=0.11, I(2)=43%), especially among the target population ([RR] 0.72, [95%CI] 0.69-0.94, p=0.58 I(2)=0%), the elderly group aged over 40 years ([RR] 0.80, [95%CI] 0.69-0.94) and the Japanese population ([RR] 0.72, [95%CI] 0.59-0.88, p=0.24, I(2)=30%). The target population included adults aged over 65 years and patients at high risk of pneumonia due to chronic lung disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or living in a nursing home. Protective trends of PPV-23 in the outcomes of pneumococcal pneumonia ([RR] 0.54, [95%CI] 0.18-1.65, p=0.01, I(2)=77%) and mortality due to pneumonia ([RR] 0.67, [95%CI] 0.43-1.04, p=0.67, I(2)=0%) were observed, although the results were statistically insignificant, possibly due to the small number of trials included. PPV-23 did not prevent all-cause mortality ([RR] 1.04, [95%CI] 0.87-1.24, p=0.95, I(2)=0%). CONCLUSIONS: PPV-23 provided weak protection against all-cause pneumonia in an immunocompetent population, especially among the target population. The additional benefit of PPV-23 in preventing CAP further supports its application in the target population.