MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200137597 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000008645

Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· article· en· W4200137597 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniofacialEdentulismMEDLINECraniofacial surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite its increasing use in craniofacial surgery, the evidence for piezosurgery over conventional bone-cutting techniques has not been critically appraised. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify and assess the evidence that exists for the use of piezosurgery in craniofacial surgery. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using a computerized search. Publication descriptors, methodologic details, and outcomes were extracted. Articles were assessed using the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies and Cochrane instruments. Random effects meta-analysis was completed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included. Most studies were published within the past 5 years (51.3 percent) and were randomized controlled trials (56.4 percent). The mean age of patients was 27 years (range, 0.2 to 57 years), and the mean sample size was 44 (range, 12 to 180). Meta-analysis revealed that compared to conventional instruments, piezosurgery had a lower postoperative incidence of sensory disturbance, principally in mandibular procedures (OR, 0.29; 95 percent CI, 0.11 to 0.77; p = 0.01) and pain at postoperative day 3 (mean difference, -0.86; 95 percent CI, -1.20 to -0.53; p < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in operating room time (mean difference, 8.60; 95 percent CI, -1.27 to 18.47; p = 0.80) or osteotomy time (mean difference, 0.35; 95 percent CI, -2.99 to 3.68; p = 0.84). Most studies were clinically homogenous (92 percent) and of high quality based on the methodologic index for nonrandomized studies instrument (84 percent). Few studies had domains at high risk of bias based on the Cochrane instrument (28.6 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Piezosurgery has considerable benefits when compared to conventional instruments. Future studies should investigate its cost-effectiveness and benefits in terms of blood loss, edema/ecchymosis, and patient satisfaction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.036
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery TechniquesFrench-language works237,207