Enhanced recovery after orthognathic surgery: a retrospective comparison study of 56 patients.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols have been demonstrated to expedite recovery and decrease hospital stay from multiple surgical specialties. This study sought to determine how an ERAS protocol would improve patient outcomes with regards to inpatient postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain scores following orthognathic surgeries. This was a retrospective study comparing patients who underwent orthognathic surgery with and without an ERAS protocol. The primary measurables included opioid consumption, antiemetic medical consumption, nausea and vomiting incidences, and pain scores between the two groups during their hospital stays. A total of 56 patients were retrospectively analysed comparing ERAS protocol to non-ERAS protocol. The maximum pain score of the ERAS group was 5.50 out of 10 compared to the control group of 7.50 out of 10 (p<0.001). Morphine equivalent consumption during their time in the ward was statistically significant (51.4 mg control versus 9.4 mg ERAS group). ERAS protocol is safe and effective for decreasing postoperative pain and nausea. The ERAS protocol is not only applicable for orthognathic surgery but should be highly considered for other maxillofacial surgeries.

Routine Screening Radiography for Retained Wire Following Arch Bar Removal Is Not Indicated.

PURPOSE: To estimate the screening test value of routine radiography after arch bar wire removal by assessing the incidence of retained wires and the importance of their sequelae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective medical record review. Records of arch bar removal procedures were examined and divided into those screened with radiography after removal (screen group) and those that were not screened (comparison group). The incidence of retained wire was calculated for each group. Study variables included wire-related radiographic or clinical findings. RESULTS: Records of 546 mandible fractures were reviewed; 95 met the study criteria. Most exclusions were due to lack of arch bars, missing postoperative radiographs, or insufficient postoperative documentation. Of the 55 records in the screen group, 1 wire was detected (2%); of the 40 records in the comparison group, 1 wire was detected (3%). The total incidence of retained wire findings was not statistically different between the 2 groups and there were no adverse wire-related sequelae reported by any of the 95 patients. CONCLUSION: Because of the low incidence of retained wires and wire-related sequelae, routine imaging after wire removal is probably not an effective screening test for retained wire and should be limited to situations in which there is clinical suspicion of retained wire.