Accepted Manuscript Orthognathic Surgery in Patients Over 40 Years of Age: Indications and Special Considerations Zachary S. Peacock, DMD, MD Cameron C.Y. Lee, BS Katherine P. Klein, DMD, MS Leonard B. Kaban, DMD, MD PII:

S0278-2391(14)00333-4

DOI:

10.1016/j.joms.2014.03.020

Reference:

YJOMS 56267

To appear in:

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Received Date: 23 February 2014 Revised Date:

25 March 2014

Accepted Date: 25 March 2014

Please cite this article as: Peacock ZS, Lee CCY, Klein KP, Kaban LB, Orthognathic Surgery in Patients Over 40 Years of Age: Indications and Special Considerations, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2014.03.020. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

M AN U

SC

Zachary S. Peacock, DMD, MD1 Cameron C.Y. Lee, BS2 Katherine P. Klein, DMD, MS3 Leonard B. Kaban, DMD, MD4

RI PT

Orthognathic Surgery in Patients Over 40 Years of Age: Indications and Special Considerations

From the Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts

TE D

1) Assistant Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2) DMD candidate, Harvard School of Dental Medicine 3) Instructor in Orthodontics 4) Walter C. Guralnick Professor and Chairman, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

EP

Address Correspondence to:

AC C

Zachary S. Peacock, DMD, MD Massachusetts General Hospital Warren 1201 55 Fruit St. Boston, MA 02114 E-mail: [email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract Purpose: To assess indications, incidence, patient experience, and outcomes of orthognathic

RI PT

surgery in patients over 40 years of age. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent orthognathic surgical procedures at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1995-2012.

Demographic variables including age, gender, indications, date, and type of operation were

SC

documented. Subjects were divided into two groups by date of operation: 1) 1995-2002 and 2) 2003-2012. The predictor variable was age (over or under 40 years). Outcome variables included

M AN U

indications for treatment, date of operation, length of hospital stay, removal of hardware, and complications.

Results: During the study period, 1420 patients underwent 2170 procedures; 911 subjects (1343 procedures) met inclusion criteria. Group 1 consisted of 260 subjects (346 procedures, 35

TE D

subjects ≥40, 13.5%) and Group 2, 651 subjects (997 procedures, 89 subjects ≥40, 13.8%). Subjects over 40 had longer hospital stays (p ≤ 0.0001) than those under 40. Indications for men were more frequently functional problems, while women sought aesthetic improvements (p =

EP

0.0001). Subjects over 40 were, respectively, 2.51, 2.44, and 2.72 times more likely to require hardware removal 6 months (p = 0.0245), 12 months (p = 0.0073), and 24 months (p = 0.0003)

AC C

postoperatively than those less than 40. Conclusion: Motivation to undergo orthognathic surgery varies with respect to age and gender. Older patients, particularly men, tend to seek treatment for functional rather than aesthetic reasons. Patients over 40 had longer hospital stays and an increased rate of postoperative hardware removal.

1

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Introduction Orthognathic surgery is the treatment of choice to improve facial aesthetics and to correct

RI PT

malocclusion in patients with dentofacial deformities. Traditionally, the majority of patients were in the second or third decade of life, and they were motivated to seek treatment by a combination of functional and aesthetic complaints.

Recently, there has been an apparent increase in older patients seeking orthognathic

SC

surgery [1, 2]. It has been hypothesized that much of this increase may be attributed to the

frequency of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and the success of maxillo-mandibular advancement

M AN U

for its treatment [3, 4]. Apart from this, patients have become aware of improvements in orthognathic surgical techniques and the favorable overall experience. Previously, they may have delayed orthognathic surgery because of misunderstandings about the dangers of the operation or the fear of having “my teeth wired shut.” Orthognathic surgery can also play a role in complex,

TE D

multidisciplinary treatment plans, especially for periodontal and restorative dental problems that cannot be successfully managed in the presence of a jaw size discrepancy. Finally, there are increasing numbers of men and woman over 40 years of age seeking orthognathic surgery

EP

specifically to improve facial aesthetics.

Older patients undergoing orthognathic surgery may experience more difficulty during

AC C

the perioperative and postoperative periods. There have been multiple reports of increased rates of neurosensory disturbance following mandibular and/ or maxillary surgery in patients over age 30 [5-13]. Others have suggested that patients over 30 may have increased rates of hardware removal [14, 15]. The definition of “older patients” in relation to orthognathic surgery and their specific characteristics are not well described in the literature. In most published studies, patients over 30

2

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

years of age are included with only a few patients over 40 in the analyses [16-18]. Outcome studies documenting recovery, complications and anatomic stability with most subjects less than 25 years of age may not be applicable to patients over 40. Therefore, a focused study of older

RI PT

patients (> 40 years old) would provide useful information for clinicians and would improve the surgeon’s ability to educate this cohort regarding expectations for recovery and outcomes. As a result, patient experience and satisfaction may be improved.

SC

This is the first in a series of studies our group is conducting on orthognathic surgery in patients over 40 years of age to document demographics, indications for treatment, frequency of

M AN U

various operations, length of stay (LOS), expected outcomes, complications and stability. We have defined “older patients” for this project as being at least 40 years of age. This is somewhat arbitrary, but in our clinical experience and from the literature, this age seems to be a threshold or dividing point with regard to the above outcome measures[5-15]. It has been reported that

TE D

permanent paresthesia and hardware removal are more common in patients over 30 years of age, but few patients over the age of 40 [5-15] are included in these studies. The next phase of this research will be to collect data and report on duration of recovery, return to normal function,

EP

anatomic stability, patient satisfaction and complications specifically related to diagnosis and operative variables in this cohort of patients. The goals of the present study were to determine

AC C

the proportion of patients undergoing orthognathic surgery at MGH over the last two decades who were at least 40 years of age and to define their motivation for seeking treatment. Secondary goals were to determine length of hospital stay and the incidence of hardware removal in this patient population compared to those under 40 years of age. We hypothesized that: 1) There has been an increase in patients over 40 undergoing orthognathic surgery in the last 10 years compared to the previous decade; 2) men over 40 most commonly seek functional improvements

3

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

for conditions such as OSA; 3) women over 40, more commonly than men, seek aesthetic improvements; and 4) the mean hospital stay and incidence of hardware removal are higher in

RI PT

patients over 40 when compared to those under 40 years of age.

Materials and Methods Study Design/Population:

SC

This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing orthognathic surgery in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)

M AN U

between January 1995 and December 2012. Potential subjects were identified via search of the hospital database using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for orthognathic procedures (21141, 21142, 21143, 21145, 21146, 21147, 21193, 21194, 21195, 21196, 21121, and 21122). Patients were included as study subjects if they had accessible preoperative, intraoperative, and

TE D

postoperative records, and a clear indication of a chief complaint. Those who had nonconventional orthognathic surgery procedures (e.g. osteotomies for distraction osteogenesis, condylar reconstruction) or had a diagnosis of hemifacial microsomia, craniofacial microsomia,

EP

or other craniofacial syndromes were excluded. Patients undergoing only surgically-assisted maxillary expansion were also excluded from the outcomes analyses. The project was approved

AC C

by the MGH Institutional Review Board (Protocol #2010-P-002315).

Study Variables

Demographic variables collected included age at the time of operation, gender, race, and procedure(s) performed. Patients were divided into two groups by date of operation: 1) 19952002 and 2) 2003-2012. Comparing the last 2 complete decades was not possible as very few

4

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

patients underwent orthognathic surgery prior to 1995 and the accompanying records were sparse and not standardized. The predictor variable was age (over or under 40 years). Outcome variables included indications for treatment (functional vs. aesthetic), date of operation, length of

RI PT

hospital stay and incidence of hardware removal. Indications for treatment were classified as functional or aesthetic based upon the patient’s chief complaint at the initial consultation. Chief complaints classified as functional included problems with mastication, speech, breathing, OSA,

SC

pain, or muscle fatigue. Patient motivation was classified as aesthetic if the chief complaint was dissatisfaction with appearance of the face and/or the teeth. Length of stay was measured as time

M AN U

(hours) from postoperative admission to discharge. Hardware removal was defined as any unplanned post-operative removal of fixation hardware at our institution, regardless of the indication for hardware removal (e.g. infection, temperature sensitivity, pain, etc). In the analyses subjects were stratified by age over or under 40 as well as by decade (≤19, 20-29, 30-

TE D

39, 40-49, 50-59, and 60-69).

Statistical Analysis:

EP

Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 5.0 (GraphPad, La Jolla, CA). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Hazard ratios are presented with 95% confidence

AC C

intervals. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed to compare study variables between Group 1, years 1995-2002 and Group 2, years 2003-2012, and the entire study period. Statistical comparisons in One-Way ANOVA were performed using Bonferroni’s Multiple Comparisons Test. Comparisons in Kaplan Meier survival analyses were performed using the Log-Rank Test with Bonferroni correction. Subjects with less than 1 month of follow-up were excluded from

5

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

hardware removal and survival analyses. For all analyses a p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RI PT

Results Patient Demographics

Of the 1420 patients undergoing 2175 procedures enrolled in the study, 911 subjects

SC

(1343 procedures) met the inclusion criteria. There were 260 subjects (146 women) included who had orthognathic surgery between 1995 and 2002 and 651 subjects (330 women) between

M AN U

2003 and 2012. There were 365 subjects 19 years of age or younger, 279 between 20 and 29, 143 between 30 and 39, 89 between 40 and 49, 29 between 50 and 59, and 6 between 60 and 69. The study sample was 52.2% female with a mean age of 26.4 ± 11.1 years (Tables 1-2). The total number of patients increased by 106% between Group 1 (1995-2002) and

TE D

Group 2 (2003-2012) when adjusted for the unequal duration of the time periods. Subjects over 40 years of age comprised 13.7% of the sample. Subjects over 40 made up 13.5% of the sample of Group 1 and 13.8% of Group 2 (p = 0.93). The percentage of Asian and Hispanic patients

AC C

decade.

EP

increased by 1.1% and 2.5%, respectively, in the current decade compared to the previous

Motivation to Seek Treatment Motivation to seek treatment varied significantly with respect to subject age, gender, and procedure, but not race (Tables 3 and 4). Overall, subjects were more likely to seek treatment for

6

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a functional rather than an aesthetic problem, with 67.1% citing a functional problem as their chief complaint. Patients over 40 were 1.23 times more likely to have a functional chief complaint (79.8%) compared to patients under 40 (65.1%) (p = 0.0010). The incidence of a

RI PT

functional chief complaint increased for each increasing age group by decade of life (p ≤ 0.0001) (Fig 1).

Men were 1.19 times more likely than women to have a functional chief complaint in all

SC

age groups (73.6% vs. 61.8%, p = 0.0001) and 1.31 times more likely if over 40 (89.7% vs. 68.6%, p = 0.0049).

M AN U

There were 56 subjects (13 women) who had a chief complaint of OSA with 89.3% occurring between 2003 and 2012. 31 of these subjects were over 40 years of age. OSA was the functional chief complaint for 47.1% of men over 40 years of age, but only 12.5% of women

Length of Hospital Stay

TE D

over 40 years of age.

The mean hospital stay for the entire cohort of 818 admitted subjects was 34.9 ± 16.5

EP

hours. Those over 40 had significantly longer hospital stays than subjects under 40, with mean hospital stays of 42.0 ± 17.9 hours compared to 33.9 ± 16.0 hours, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001) (Fig

AC C

2A). When stratified by decade of life length of hospital stay in hours varied significantly with respect to age (p = 0.0002) (Fig 2B). Subjects who were 50-59 had longer hospital stays than those ≤19 and 20-29, while subjects who were 40-49 had longer hospital stays than all the younger age groups (p ≤ 0.05). Two outlier subjects with hospital stays of 15 days (38 years old) and 19 days (16 years old) were excluded from analysis.

7

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Hardware Removal There were 76 cases of unplanned hardware removal in the study sample resulting in an overall incidence of 12.8% over 17 years (Table 4). The mean time to hardware removal was

RI PT

21.0 ± 28.3 months. Subjects over 40 were 1.95 times more likely to have hardware removed than subjects under 40, with removal occurring in 23.0% and 11.0% of cases in subjects over and under 40, respectively (p = 0.0050). The mean time to removal for subjects over and under 40

SC

was 14.4 ± 17.2 months and 23.4 ± 31.2 months, respectively (p = 0.2254). Kaplan Meier

analysis indicated that subjects over 40 were 2-3 times more likely to experience hardware

M AN U

removal 6 months post-operatively (p = 0.0245, Hazard Ratio (HR) = 2.51 [1.18-10.1]) (Fig 3A), 12 months post-operatively (p = 0.0073, HR = 2.44 [1.38-7.87]) (Fig 3B), and 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.0003, HR = 2.72 [1.88-8.22]) (Fig 3C) compared to subjects under 40. Analysis of survival across the 17-year study period indicated that subjects over 40 were 1.94

TE D

times more likely to experience hardware removal than subjects under 40 (p = 0.0087, HR = 1.95 [1.24-4.30]) (Fig 3D). When stratified by decade of life incidence of hardware removal significantly varied by age (p = 0.017). Subjects over 50 were significantly more likely to require

EP

hardware removal compared to subjects 19 years or younger at all time points (p ≤ 0.05) (Fig 4). Similarly, subjects over 40 were significantly more likely to require hardware removal compared

AC C

to subjects 19 years or younger 12 months post-operatively, 24 months post-operatively, and over the entire study period (p ≤ 0.05). Subjects between the ages of 60-69 were included in analyses, but a relatively small sample size (6 subjects without an incidence of hardware removal) limited statistical comparisons.

8

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Discussion

RI PT

The purpose of this study was to determine how the demographics and motivation of patients undergoing orthognathic surgery have changed over the past 2 decades at a single

institution. Secondarily, we assessed how age affects hospital stay and the incidence of hardware removal following orthognathic surgery. We hypothesized that the proportion of patients over 40

SC

increased between the current decade and the previous decade, and that within this subset of patients, men primarily sought treatment for functional problems while women sought treatment

M AN U

for aesthetic problems. With regard to outcomes, we hypothesized that the mean length of hospital stay as well as incidence of hardware removal would be increased in patients over 40. Although orthognathic surgery is usually performed in the second or third decade, patients over 40 years of age made up a significant proportion of this patient pool. In the present

TE D

study, 13.7% of orthognathic surgery patients were over 40 years of age. While this percentage increased by only 0.30% over the past 2 decades, the total number of patients treated per year more than doubled between the two time periods. Using the absolute data adjusted for years, the

EP

number of patients undergoing orthognathic surgery increased by 106% between decades, with a proportional increase in patients over 40.

AC C

While these data did not support our hypothesis that the percentage of patients over 40 is increasing, the apparent increase can perhaps be explained as follows. Orthognathic surgery has increasingly become a procedure performed in academic institutions[19]. In the first time period of this study (1995-2002), a higher portion of orthognathic procedures were likely performed by private practitioners [19]. It would be reasonable to think that atypical patients (i.e. older patients or those with OSA) were still referred to teaching hospitals while younger ‘standard’ cases were

9

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

more likely to be done privately. Thus, the patients over 40 undergoing treatment at our institution between 1995 and 2002 may actually be a smaller percentage of the total number of patients undergoing orthognathic surgery in the region. It can be assumed that the rate of

RI PT

skeletal malocclusion has remained the same and the percentage of total orthognathic surgery patients treated at academic institutions has increased; therefore, an unchanging percentage of patients over 40 between the two time periods may actually represent an increase in this

SC

demographic due to the increase in total patients being treated at our institution.

In this study, motivation to seek treatment varied significantly with age and gender. This

M AN U

information could be helpful for optimizing treatment plans for each patient demographic. Subjects who were older or male were more likely to seek treatment for functional reasons whereas younger and female subjects sought aesthetic improvements. Patients with obstructive sleep apnea represented 47.1% of males and 12.5% of females in the over 40 year cohort, a much

TE D

higher percentage than in those under 40 (p ≤ 0.0001). Subjects over 40 year of age had longer hospital stays and increased likelihood of hardware removal. Specifically, subjects that were 4049 and 50-59 had a longer duration of hospital stay compared to each of the younger groups.

EP

Similarly, subjects 40-49 and 50-59 also had an increased likelihood of hardware removal compared to subjects 19 years or younger. No difference in hospital stay or risk of hardware

AC C

removal was detected between subjects 40-49 and 50-59, supporting our overall comparison of subjects over and under 40 years of age. The study sample and results of this study are similar to prior studies conducted on motivation for treatment and outcomes following orthognathic surgery. Previously published reports indicate similar gender percentages [2, 20-25] and that 60-80% of patients seek functional improvements [20, 23, 26-28]. Most authors also report that women are more likely to

10

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

seek cosmetic improvement in accordance with our results [13, 26, 29]. Results of the current study also support the recent finding that Asian and Hispanic patients are beginning to comprise a greater percentage of the patient population [2, 30]. As the population becomes more diverse,

RI PT

racial and ethnic differences in anatomy may warrant further attention in research and treatment planning.

The mean hospital stay (1.57 days, 34.9 hours) in this study was within range of previous

SC

reports of hospital stays between 1-4 days [30-33]. The incidence of hardware removal (12.8%) was also comparable to the rate of 9-15% found in the literature [14,15,18, 24, 32, 34-36]. This is

M AN U

the first report of an increased risk of hardware removal specifically in patients over 40 years of age compared to other age groups. While there have been reports of up to 3.67 times greater risk of hardware removal in patients over 30, we did not detect a statistically significant difference in risk between subjects 50-59, 40-49, and 30-39 [14, 15, 24, 37].

TE D

This study has several limitations. First, patients undergoing correction of OSA have often been considered different from ‘standard’ orthognathic surgery patients. Excluding OSA patients from this analysis, results in a loss of significance for length of stay and hardware

EP

removal in the older age group. This could be explained by a loss of statistical power as subjects over 40 are disproportionately impacted by this method of analysis. Conversely, the large

AC C

skeletal movements for correction of OSA could be a risk factor for hardware removal, and would require further study. The rate of functional deficit as motivation for seeking treatment could be falsely elevated to improve the chances of obtaining insurance authorization. Patients and providers alike understand that if an aesthetic motivation is stated, third party coverage may be denied.

11

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Surveys and/or patient interviews may be better for analyzing the real motivation for seeking treatment, but would not be feasible in this 17 year study. This study is one of the largest to assess outcomes following orthognathic surgery in

RI PT

patients over 40. The results confirm that these patients represent a significant subset of

orthognathic surgery patients and that age and gender have an impact on motivation for seeking treatment. Our data also suggest that patients over 40 have longer hospital stays and an increased

SC

risk of requiring hardware removal compared to younger patients. Overall, this study provides insight into how surgical outcomes may change with increasing age. Understanding these

M AN U

changes can help surgeons educate patients to improve accuracy of expectations and ultimately to improve patient experience. The next phases of this project will include an analysis of anatomic stability by diagnosis and procedures, patient satisfaction, quality of life measures and

TE D

complications related to age of orthognathic surgery patients.

Funding

This work was funded by the MGH Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Education

AC C

EP

and Research Fund and the Harvard Medical School Scholars in Medicine Program

12

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References 1.

Parton AL, Tong DC, De Silva HL, et al: A nine-year review of orthognathic surgery at

2.

RI PT

the University of Otago. The New Zealand dental journal 107:117, 2011

Bailey LJ, Haltiwanger LH, Blakey GH, et al: Who seeks surgical-orthodontic treatment:

a current review. The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery

3.

SC

16:280, 2001

Hsieh YJ, Liao YF: Effects of maxillomandibular advancement on the upper airway and

M AN U

surrounding structures in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea: a systematic review. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 51:834, 2013 4.

Boyd SB, Walters AS, Song Y, et al: Comparative effectiveness of maxillomandibular

advancement and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty for the treatment of moderate to severe obstructive

TE D

sleep apnea. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 71:743, 2013 5.

Coghlan KM, Irvine GH: Neurological damage after sagittal split osteotomy. Int J Oral

6.

EP

Maxillofac Surg 15:369, 1986

Leira JI, Gilhuus-Moe OT: Sensory impairment following sagittal split osteotomy for

7.

AC C

correction of mandibular retrognathism. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 6:161, 1991 Nishioka GJ, Zysset MK, Van Sickels JE: Neurosensory disturbance with rigid fixation

of the bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 45:20, 1987 8.

Lindquist CC, Obeid G: Complications of genioplasty done alone or in combination with

sagittal split-ramus osteotomy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 66:13, 1988

13

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

9.

MacIntosh RB: Experience with the sagittal osteotomy of the mandibular ramus: a 13-

year review. J Maxillofac Surg 9:151, 1981 10.

Westermark A, Bystedt H, von Konow L: Inferior alveolar nerve function after sagittal

RI PT

split osteotomy of the mandible: correlation with degree of intraoperative nerve encounter and other variables in 496 operations. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 36:429, 1998 11.

Ylikontiola L, Kinnunen J, Oikarinen K: Factors affecting neurosensory disturbance after

12.

SC

mandibular bilateral sagittal split osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 58:1234, 2000

August M, Marchena J, Donady J, et al: Neurosensory deficit and functional impairment

M AN U

after sagittal ramus osteotomy: a long-term follow-up study. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 56:1231, 1998 13.

Baas EM, Horsthuis RB, de Lange J: Subjective alveolar nerve function after bilateral

TE D

sagittal split osteotomy or distraction osteogenesis of mandible. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 70:910, 2012

Theodossy T, Jackson O, Petrie A, et al: Risk factors contributing to symptomatic plate

EP

14.

removal following sagittal split osteotomy. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery

15.

AC C

35:598, 2006

Manor Y, Chaushu G, Taicher S: Risk factors contributing to symptomatic plate removal

in orthognathic surgery patients. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 57:679, 1999 16.

Kok-Leng Yeow V, Por YC: An audit on orthognathic surgery: a single surgeon's

experience. The Journal of craniofacial surgery 19:184, 2008

14

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

17.

Choi WS, Irwin MG, Samman N: The effect of tranexamic acid on blood loss during

orthognathic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 67:125, 2009 Falter B, Schepers S, Vrielinck L, et al: Plate removal following orthognathic surgery.

RI PT

18.

Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics 112:737, 2011 19.

Zins JE, Morrison CM, Gonzalez AM, et al: Follow-up: orthognathic surgery. Is there a

20.

SC

future? A national survey. Plastic and reconstructive surgery 122:555, 2008

Nurminen L, Pietila T, Vinkka-Puhakka H: Motivation for and satisfaction with

M AN U

orthodontic-surgical treatment: a retrospective study of 28 patients. European journal of orthodontics 21:79, 1999 21.

Proffit WR, Phillips C, Dann Ct: Who seeks surgical-orthodontic treatment? The

International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery 5:153, 1990 Khan RS, Horrocks EN: A study of adult orthodontic patients and their treatment. British

TE D

22.

journal of orthodontics 18:183, 1991 23.

Proothi M, Drew SJ, Sachs SA: Motivating factors for patients undergoing orthognathic

EP

surgery evaluation. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 68:1555, 2010 Kuhlefelt M, Laine P, Suominen-Taipale L, et al: Risk factors contributing to

AC C

24.

symptomatic miniplate removal: a retrospective study of 153 bilateral sagittal split osteotomy patients. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery 39:430, 2010 25.

Cunningham SJ, Moles DR: A national review of mandibular orthognathic surgery

activity in the National Health Service in England over a nine year period: part 2--patient factors. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 47:274, 2009

15

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

26.

Espeland L, Hogevold HE, Stenvik A: A 3-year patient-centred follow-up of 516

consecutively treated orthognathic surgery patients. European journal of orthodontics 30:24, 2008 Trovik TA, Wisth PJ, Tornes K, et al: Patients' perceptions of improvements after

RI PT

27.

bilateral sagittal split osteotomy advancement surgery: 10 to 14 years of follow-up. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American

SC

Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 141:204, 2012

Oland J, Jensen J, Elklit A, et al: Motives for surgical-orthodontic treatment and effect of

M AN U

28.

treatment on psychosocial well-being and satisfaction: a prospective study of 118 patients. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 69:104, 2011

Kiyak HA, Hohl T, Sherrick P, et al: Sex differences in motives for and outcomes of

TE D

29.

orthognathic surgery. Journal of oral surgery 39:757, 1981 30.

Venugoplan SR, Nanda V, Turkistani K, et al: Discharge patterns of orthognathic

EP

surgeries in the United States. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 70:e77, 2012 Garg M, Cascarini L, Coombes DM, et al: Multicentre study of operating time and

AC C

31.

inpatient stay for orthognathic surgery. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 48:360, 2010 32.

Parbatani R, Williams AC, Ireland AJ, et al: The process of orthognathic care in an NHS

region. Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 92:34, 2010

16

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

33.

Huaman ET, Juvet LM, Nastri A, et al: Changing patterns of hospital length of stay after

orthognathic surgery. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 66:492, 2008 Ho MW, Boyle MA, Cooper JC, et al: Surgical complications of segmental Le Fort I

RI PT

34.

osteotomy. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery 49:562, 2011 35.

Alpha C, O'Ryan F, Silva A, et al: The incidence of postoperative wound healing

SC

problems following sagittal ramus osteotomies stabilized with miniplates and monocortical screws. Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association

36.

Beals SP, Munro IR: The use of miniplates in craniomaxillofacial surgery. Plastic and

reconstructive surgery 79:33, 1987 37.

M AN U

of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 64:659, 2006

Brown JS, Trotter M, Cliffe J, et al: The fate of miniplates in facial trauma and

TE D

orthognathic surgery: a retrospective study. The British journal of oral & maxillofacial surgery

AC C

EP

27:306, 1989

17

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: Summary of Study Variables. Data are presented as n (%). A Chi-squared test was used for all statistical analyses. 1995-2002

2003-2012

Total

P-value1

P-value2 N/A

501 (35.3)

919 (64.7)

1420

N/A

Procedures

726 (33.4)

1449 (66.6)

2175

N/A

Study Sample (n)

260 (28.5)

651 (71.5)

911

N/A

Total

346 (25.8)

997 (74.2)

1343

N/A

Mandible

171 (49.4)

506 (50.8)

677 (50.4)

0.7082

Maxilla

175 (50.6)

491 (49.2)

666 (49.6)

0.7082

Male

114 (43.8)

321 (49.3)

435 (47.8)

Female

146 (56.2)

330 (50.6)

476 (52.2)

White

206 (79.2)

534 (82.0)

740 (81.2)

0.6558

Asian

15 (5.8)

45 (6.9)

60 (6.6)

0.6558

Black

9 (3.5)

23 (3.5)

32 (3.5)

0.6558

Hispanic

7 (2.7)

34 (5.2)

41 (4.5)

0.6558

Other/Mixed

23 (8.8)

15 (2.3)

38 (4.2)

≤19

99 (38.1)

266 (40.8)

365 (40.0)

0.4706

20-29

76 (29.2)

203 (31.1)

279 (30.6)

0.4706

30-39

50 (19.2)

93 (14.3)

142 (15.6)

0.4706

40-49

Sex (Binary)

Age (Categorical)

50-59 60-69 Under 40

N/A N/A

0.1424 0.1424

M AN U

Race (Categorical)3

N/A

SC

Included Procedures (Categorical)

RI PT

Patient Population

TE D

Variable

27 (10.4)

62 (9.5)

89 (9.8)

0.4706

6 (2.3)

23 (3.5)

29 (3.2)

0.4706

2 (0.77)

4 (0.61)

6 (0.70)

0.4706

225 (86.5)

562 (86.2)

787 (86.3)

0.9336

AC C

EP

Over 40 35 (13.5) 89 (13.8) 124 (13.7) 0.9336 1. P-values represent Chi-squared test with two demographic groups included in statistical analysis. 2. P-values represent Chi-squared test with greater than two demographic groups included in statistical analysis. 3. Other/Mixed group excluded from analysis

18

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2: Comparison of Study Groups by Procedure. Current Procedural Terminology codes present in the study sample are italicized. Fisher’s exact

Procedure Type

Over 40

Under 40

P-value

89

455

0.1352

93

484

0.2125

14

118

0.1950

196

1147

N/A

Mandibular 21193, 21194, 21195, 21196

21141, 21142, 21143, 21145, 21146, 21147

21121, 21122 Total Procedures

M AN U

Genioplasty

SC

Maxillary

RI PT

test was used for all statistical analyses.

Table 3: Motivation to Seek Treatment Sorted by Subject Demographics. Data are presented as n (%). A Chi-squared test was used for all statistical analyses. 1995-2002 Variable

2003-2012

Functional

Aesthetic

Aesthetic

Total

Functional

Aesthetic

P value

White

140 (68.0)

66 (32.0)

206

Asian

13 (86.7)

2 (13.3)

15

358 (67.0)

176 (33.0)

534

498 (67.3)

242 (32.7)

0.4172

31 (68.9)

14 (31.1)

45

44 (73.3)

16 (26.7)

0.4172

Black

6 (66.7)

3 (33.3)

9

Hispanic

6 (85.7)

1 (14.3)

7

16 (69.6)

7 (30.4)

23

22 (68.8)

10 (31.3)

0.4172

19 (59.4)

13 (40.6)

32

25 (64.1)

14 (35.9)

Other/Mixed

10 (43.5)

13 (56.5)

0.4172

23

12 (70.6)

5 (29.4)

17

22 (55.0)

18 (45.0)

0.4172

25 (21.9)

114

228 (71.0)

93 (29.0)

321

317 (72.9)

118 (27.1)

0.0004

60 (41.1)

146

208 (63.0)

122 (37.0)

330

294 (61.8)

182 (38.2)

0.0004

57 (57.6)

42 (42.4)

99

146 (54.9)

120 (45.1)

266

203 (55.6)

162 (44.4)

≤0.0001

58 (76.3)

18 (23.7)

76

140 (69.0)

63 (31.0)

203

198 (71.0)

81 (29.0)

≤0.0001

37 (74.0)

13 (26.0)

50

74 (79.6)

19 (20.4)

93

111 (77.6)

32 (22.4)

≤0.0001

19 (70.4)

8 (29.6)

27

51 (82.3)

11 (17.7)

62

70 (78.7)

19 (21.3)

≤0.0001

3 (50.0)

3 (50.0)

6

21 (91.3)

2 (8.70)

23

24 (87.8)

5 (12.2)

≤0.0001

1 (50.0)

1 (50.0)

2

4 (100.0)

0 (0.00)

4

5 (83.3)

1 (16.7)

≤0.0001

Under 40

152 (67.6)

73 (32.4)

225

360 (64.1)

202 (35.9)

562

512 (65.1)

275 (34.9)

0.0010

Over 40

23 (65.7)

12 (34.3)

35

76 (85.4)

13 (14.6)

89

100 (80.0)

25 (20.0)

0.0010

Mandible

105 (61.4)

66 (38.6)

171

318 (62.8)

188 (37.2)

506

423 (62.5)

254 (37.5)

0.0068

Maxilla

121 (69.1)

54 (30.9)

175

342 (69.7)

149 (30.3)

491

463 (69.5)

203 (30.5)

0.0068

Male

89 (78.1)

Female

86 (58.9)

≤19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69

AC C

Age

EP

Gender

Functional

TE D

Race

Total

All Patients

Procedure

19

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4. Motivation to Seek Treatment Sorted by Age and Gender. Data are presented as n (%). A Chi-squared test was used for all statistical analyses.

Demographic

Functional

2003-2012

Aesthetic

Total

Functional

All Patients

Aesthetic

Total

12 (85.7)

2 (14.3)

14

39 (90.7)

4 (9.3)

43

Women ≥40

11 (52.4)

10 (47.6)

21

37 (80.4)

9 (19.6)

46

Men ≤40

77 (77.0)

23 (23.0)

100

189 (68.0)

89 (32.0)

Women ≤40

75 (60.0)

50 (40.0)

125

171 (60.2)

113 (39.8)

Aesthetic

P value

51 (89.5)

6 (10.5)

0.0147

48 (71.6)

19 (28.4)

0.0147

278

266 (70.4)

112 (29.6)

0.0027

284

246 (60.1)

163 (39.9)

0.0027

M AN U

SC

Men ≥40

Functional

RI PT

1995-2002

Table 5: Comparison of Outcomes by Age. Data are presented as n or mean ± standard deviation.

Patient Age Variable OSA

50-59

60-69

≤40

≥40

P value1

P value2

10

1

25

31

≤0.0001

≤0.0001

77 41.44 ± 16.1

24 44.29 ± 22.7

5 40.06 ± 21.5

683 33.85 ± 16.0

105 42.02 ± 17.9

N/A

N/A

0.0002

≤0.0001

62

21

4

497

87

N/A

N/A

≤19

20-29

30-39

40-49

4

9

12

20

330 34.1± 16.6

238 33.3± 14.6

115 34.35 ±17.2

234

182

81

Subjects Length of Stay Hardware Removal

Subjects

TE D

Hospital Stay

AC C

EP

Total 22 24 10 14 6 0 56 20 0.0041 0.0024 Removals Months to 35.5 16.8 12.7 17.9 ± 6.33 ± 23.4 ± 14.4 ± N/A 0.05783 0.2254 Event ±41.7 ±18.8 ±19.1 19.4 4.97 31.2 17.2 % Removal 1.64% 5.20% 6.17% 6.45% 19.0% 0.00% 3.55% 9.20% 0.0013 0.0245 6 mo. % Removal 2.46% 7.69% 9.88% 11.3% 23.8% 0.00% 5.52% 13.8% ≤0.0001 0.0073 12 mo. % Removal 4.10% 10.4% 9.88% 19.4% 28.6% 0.00% 7.30% 20.7% ≤0.0001 0.0003 24 mo. % Removal 9.40% 13.2% 12.3% 22.6% 28.6% 0.00% 11.3% 23.0% 0.0017 0.0087 Overall OSA; Obstructive Sleep Apnea 1. P-values represent Chi-squared test for trend, One-Way ANOVA, or Log-Rank test with all 6 age groups used as categorical variables in statistical analysis. 2. P-values represent Chi-squared test, unpaired t-test, or Log-Rank test with binary ≥40 and ≤40 age groups in statistical analysis. 3. The 60-69 age group was excluded from analyses due to 0 hardware failures

20

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RI PT

Figure Legends

Figure 1. Subject Motivation to Seek Treatment with Respect to Age.

A, Number of subjects with functional or aesthetic chief complaints sorted by age; B, Percentage

SC

of subjects in each age group with functional or aesthetic chief complaints. From youngest to oldest, subjects in these cohorts reported functional chief complaints 55.6%, 71.0%,

with respect to age (p ≤ 0.0001).

M AN U

77.6%,78.7%, 87.8%, and 83.3% of the time. Motivation to seek treatment varied significantly

Figure 2. Length of Hospital Stay with Respect to Age.

TE D

A, Subjects over 40 had increased length of hospital stay in hours compared to subjects under 40 (p ≤ 0.0001); B, Length of hospital stay in hours varied significantly with respect to age (p = 0.0002). Subjects over 40 spent significantly more hours in the hospital compared to subjects in

EP

≤19, 20-29, and 30-39 (p ≤ 0.05). Subjects 50-59 spent significantly more hours in the hospital

AC C

compared to subjects ≤19 and 20-29 (p ≤ 0.05). (**** = p ≤ 0.0001).

Figure 3. Incidence of Post-Operative Hardware Removal in Subjects Over and Under 40. A, Subjects over 40 had significantly higher incidence of hardware removal 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.0245); B, 12 months post-operatively (p = 0.0073); C, 24 months postoperatively (p = 0.0003); D, over the entire study period (p = 0.0087) censored at 10 years

21

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

follow-up compared to subjects under 40. All comparisons were performed using the Log-Rank test.

RI PT

Figure 4. Incidence of Post-Operative Hardware Removal Stratified by Age.

A, The incidence of hardware removal significantly varied with respect to age 6 months postoperatively (p = 0.0074); B, 12 months post-operatively (p ≤ 0.0001); C, 24 months post-

SC

operatively (p = 0.0002); D, over the entire study period (p = 0.0087) censored at 10 years follow-up. Subjects 60-69 were included in analyses but did not experience any hardware

AC C

EP

TE D

Rank test with Bonferroni correction.

M AN U

failures and thus are not seen on the graphs. All comparisons were performed using the Log-

22

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC C

EP

TE D

M AN U

SC

RI PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Orthognathic surgery in patients over 40 years of age: indications and special considerations.

To assess indications, incidence, patient experience, and outcomes of orthognathic surgery in patients over 40 years of age...
533KB Sizes 2 Downloads 3 Views