Advertisement

How should we describe complications and stratify error in the treatment of facial fractures? A systematic review of the literature

Published:August 22, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2022.08.006

      Abstract

      Oral and maxillofacial (OMFS) facial fractures account for approximately 5%-10% of presentations to emergency departments in the UK. Although most trauma is treated operatively, different methods of surgery exist for the same clinical presentation and non- surgical management is in some cases appropriate. Analysis of patient morbidity is an essential component of clinical governance in surgery. OMFS units in the UK should hold regular morbidity and mortality (M&M) meetings, but no consensus exists for which cases should be discussed. For example, most units focus only on cases treated surgically, primarily unexpected returns to theatre. Finally, there is no agreed structure for describing how complications occur and a focus on terms such as error. The aim of this review is to help inform which patients should be discussed in M&M meetings based on existing scoring systems. A systematic review of the literature has been undertaken using the Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology. Databases searched were PubMed and Science Direct. Eleven unique papers and a companion article met the criteria and were analysed. Many M&M classification systems exist, but these systems are unsuited for maxillofacial purposes. There is a need for a novel system which is tailored to the specialty.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Cuéllar J.
        • Santana J.
        • Núñez C.
        • et al.
        Surgical or conservative treatment for mandibular condyle fractures.
        Medwave. 2018; 18: e7352
        • Back C.P.
        • McLean N.R.
        • Anderson P.J.
        • et al.
        The conservative management of facial fractures: indications and outcomes.
        J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2007; 60: 146-151
        • Puglia F.A.
        • Hills A.
        • Dawoud B.
        • et al.
        Management of oral and maxillofacial trauma during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom.
        Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021; 59: 867-874
        • Macfarlane A.J.
        What is clinical governance?.
        BJA Education. 2019; 19: 174-175
        • Paudel P.
        • Rajbhandari B.
        • Pradhan G.B.
        • et al.
        An analysis of surgical complications; a tool to improve surgical outcome.
        Nepal Med Coll J. 2014; 16: 115-118
      1. Royal College of Surgeons. Morbidity and Mortality Meetings. Available from: URL://www.rcseng.ac.uk/standards-and-research/standards-and-guidance/good-practice-guides/morbidity-and-mortality-meetings/ (last accessed 5 September 2022).

        • Vreugdenburg T.D.
        • Forel D.
        • Marlow N.
        • et al.
        Morbidity and mortality meetings: gold, silver or bronze?.
        ANZ J Surg. 2018; 88: 966-974
        • Slater N.
        • Sekhon P.
        • Bradley N.
        • et al.
        Morbidity and mortality conferences in general surgery: a narrative systematic review.
        Can J Surg. 2020; 63: E211-E222
        • Yoon P.D.
        • Chalasani V.
        • Woo H.H.
        Use of Clavien-Dindo classification in reporting and grading complications after urological surgical procedures: analysis of 2010 to 2012.
        J Urol. 2013; 190: 1271-1274
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000100
        • Wu E.
        • Luo J.
        • Parmar S.
        • et al.
        Classifying morbidity and error in oral and maxillofacial trauma using the clavien-dindo classification: a prospective pilot study.
        BJS. 2021; 108 (znab259.638)
        • Naumann D.N.
        • Vincent L.E.
        • Pearson N.
        • et al.
        An adapted Clavien-Dindo scoring system in trauma as a clinically meaningful non-mortality endpoint.
        J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2017; 83: 241-248
        • Boliger M.
        • Kroehnert J.H.
        • Molineus F.
        Experiences with the standardized classification of surgical complications (Clavien-Dindo) in general surgery patients.
        Eur Surg. 2018; 50: 256-261
        • Brborović O.
        • Brborović H.
        • Nola I.A.
        • et al.
        Culture of blame—an ongoing burden for doctors and patient safety.
        Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; 16: 4826
        • Lerner E.B.
        • Willenbring B.D.
        • Pirrallo R.G.
        • et al.
        A consensus-based criterion standard for trauma center need.
        J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014; 76: 1157-1163
        • Raikundalia M.
        • Svider P.F.
        • Hanba C.
        • et al.
        Facial fracture repair and diabetes mellitus: An examination of postoperative complications.
        Laryngoscope. 2017; 127: 809-814
        • Kim E.J.
        • Lee K.R.
        Effects of an examiner’s positive and negative feedback on self-assessment of skill performance, emotional response, and self-efficacy in Korea: a quasi-experimental study.
        BMC Med Educ. 2019; 19: 142