Piezosurgery versus Conventional Cutting Techniques in Craniofacial Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".