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