Next Article in Journal
TIcagrelor in Rotational Atherectomy to Reduce TROPonin Enhancement: The TIRATROP Study, A Randomized Controlled Trial
Next Article in Special Issue
Scalp Reconstruction Using the Latissimus Dorsi Free Flap: A 12-Year Experience
Previous Article in Journal
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with a Cementless and Metaphyseal Stem Fixation Is a Viable Option for the Treatment of Proximal Humeral Fractures with Calcar Involvement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm12041444
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Early Outcomes and Risk Factors in Orthognathic Surgery for Mandibular and Maxillary Hypo- and Hyperplasia: A 13-Year Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Database

by
Samuel Knoedler
1,
Helena Baecher
2,
Cosima C. Hoch
3,
Doha Obed
1,4,
Dany Y. Matar
1,
Carsten Rendenbach
5,
Bong-Sung Kim
6,
Leila Harhaus
7,
Martin Kauke-Navarro
8,
Gabriel Hundeshagen
7,
Leonard Knoedler
9,
Dennis P. Orgill
1 and
Adriana C. Panayi
1,7,*
1
Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
2
Department of Plastic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany
3
Medical Faculty, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, 07737 Jena, Germany
4
Department of Plastic, Aesthetic, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
5
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, 10117 Berlin, Germany
6
Department of Plastic Surgery and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Zurich, 8091 Zurich, Switzerland
7
Department of Hand, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Microsurgery, Burn Trauma Center, BG Trauma Center Ludwigshafen, University of Heidelberg, 67071 Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany
8
Division of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06520, USA
9
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(4), 1444; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041444
Submission received: 27 December 2022 / Revised: 29 January 2023 / Accepted: 9 February 2023 / Published: 11 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Facial Reconstruction Surgery: Clinical Obstacles and Challenges)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Orthognathic surgery (OS) is a frequently performed procedure for the correction of dentofacial deformities and malocclusion. Research on OS is mostly limited to single-surgeon experience or single-institutional reports. We, therefore, retrospectively analyzed a multi-institutional database to investigate outcomes of OS and identify risk factors for peri- and postoperative complications. Methods: We reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database (2008–2020) to identify patients who underwent OS for mandibular and maxillary hypo- and hyperplasia. The postoperative outcomes of interest included 30-day surgical and medical complications, reoperation, readmission, and mortality. We also evaluated risk factors for complications. Results: The study population included 674 patients, 48% of whom underwent single jaw surgery, 40% double jaw surgery, and 5.5% triple jaw surgery. The average age was 29 ± 11 years, with an equal gender distribution (females: n = 336; 50%, males: n = 338; 50%). Adverse events were relatively rare, with a total of 29 (4.3%) complications reported. The most common surgical complication was superficial incisional infection (n = 14; 2.1%). While the multivariable analysis revealed isolated single lower jaw surgery (p = 0.03) to be independently associated with surgical complication occurrence, it also identified an association between the outpatient setting and the frequency of surgical complications (p = 0.03) and readmissions (p = 0.02). In addition, Asian ethnicity was identified as a risk factor for bleeding (p = 0.003) and readmission (p = 0.0009). Conclusion: Based on the information recorded by the ACS-NSQIP database, our analysis underscored the positive (short-term) safety profile of OS. We found OS of the mandible to be associated with higher complication rates. The calculated risk role of OS in the outpatient setting warrants further investigation. A significant correlation between Asian OS patients and postoperative adverse events was found. Implementation of these novel risk factors into the surgical workflow may help facial surgeons refine their patient selection and improve patient outcomes. Future studies are needed to investigate the causal relationships of the observed statistical correlations.

1. Introduction

Orthognathic surgery (OS) procedures are frequently performed to correct dentofacial deformities and malocclusion. Its principles include surgical manipulation of the bones of the facial skeleton, mainly the maxilla and mandible, in order to restore anatomical relationships and function [1]. OS is indicated for patients with moderate or severe medical conditions that exceed the capabilities of orthodontics [2,3]. While functional problems and malocclusion are considered the main reasons for seeking OS, this type of procedure may also be used to manage pain-related maxillofacial problems, such as temporomandibular joint disorders [3,4]. By aligning the patient’s jaw into a healthy position, OS can help correct skeletal disharmonies and asymmetries. The resulting improvements in dentofacial aesthetics play a major role in patient satisfaction and during surgical decision-making [5,6,7].
When preparing and determining the surgical plan, OS-associated risks must be carefully taken into account. Therefore, the identification of complication predictors is essential for perioperative risk profile assessment. Potential adverse events of OS are far-reaching, ranging from hemorrhage and excessive bleeding through infection to unwanted fracture, bad split, or bone necrosis. Complication rates vary widely across the literature, with overall complication rates ranging from 4 to 27% [1,4,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. This variation is partly due to inconsistent reporting of complications, ranging from minor dental defects to more serious complications, such as bleeding. According to various studies described over the past few years, sex, age, presence or absence of third molars, surgery duration, surgeon experience, type of maxillomandibular deformity, and single jaw or bimaxillary orthognathic surgery are risk factors for complications [16,18,19,20,21].
Most of the evidence on the complication rates of orthognathic surgery procedures is derived from single-institution series with small sample sizes, which might lead to bias and limit the research significance and transferability. With this parameter distribution model, complication rates of patients undergoing OS are often not reported in academic publications. However, consistent statistics of complications and their predictors are essential for perioperative risk assessment and patient counseling. Analyses of multi-center databases help overcome such limitations and limit bias by integrating patient data with geographic and institutional differences. Using such a multi-institutional database in the context of OS would allow us to identify more robust risk factors and provide a comprehensive overview of postoperative outcomes in this diverse patient cohort.
The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program of the American College of Surgeons (NSQIP) collects validated data from more than 700 US hospitals, resulting in a large and diverse patient collection. Specifically, in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery, the current literature includes numerous studies evaluating the NSQIP data [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. Accordingly, analyses of the NSQIP records can provide valuable and insightful information that facial surgeons may wish to implement into their perioperative workflow. To the best of our knowledge, the NSQIP data have not been analyzed to determine OS outcomes in this study profile. This analysis aimed to fill this research gap by querying the ACS-NSQIP database and identifying the most common types of complications associated with OS and their associations with possible risk factors. These data can ultimately help facial surgeons performing OS make informed decisions considering the morbidity of the procedures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Source and Patient Selection

Data were gathered over a 13-year period between 2008 and 2020 from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Developed by the American College of Surgeons, the ACS-NSQIP database represents a multi-institutional and risk-adjusted data collection of surgical patients and procedures, available to participating institutions. Quality, reliability, and validity of the database are warranted by spot audits and peer controls. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (Protocol #: 2013P001244) was obtained from our institution (Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA).
The ACS-NSQIP catalog was queried between 2008 and 2020 to identify all patients who underwent OS procedures. A total of 13 annual data sets were filtered by the codes ICD-9-CM 524.01 (“Major anomalies of jaw size, maxillary hyperplasia”), 524.02 (“Major anomalies of jaw size, mandibular hyperplasia”), 524.03 (“Major anomalies of jaw size, maxillary hypoplasia”), 524.04 (“Major anomalies of jaw size, mandibular hypoplasia”), and ICD-10-CM M26.01 (“Maxillary hyperplasia”), M26.02 (“Maxillary hypoplasia”), M26.03 (“Mandibular hyperplasia”), and M26.04 (“Mandibular hypoplasia”). Patients with other and/or more far-reaching diagnoses, such as syndromes with dentofacial manifestations, were not included. All cases with physiologically impossible body mass indices (<7 kg/m2 or >250 kg/m2) were excluded as miscoding. Patients under 18 years of age were not eligible. Any cases with treatments reaching beyond the OS scope and/or concurrent non-OS interventions were excluded. The generated patient pool was manually reviewed by two investigators (SK and AP), and the classification as OS was verified for each case. A third investigator (LK) was consulted in order to resolve any discrepant assessments. As a result, we compiled a homogenous cohort of patients who had been diagnosed with mandibular or maxillary hypo- or hyperplasia and underwent OS.

2.2. Variable Extraction

Pre-, peri-, and 30-day postoperative variables were extracted.
(i)
Preoperative data included patient demographics (gender, age, race), comorbidities (diabetes mellitus [insulin-dependent or not], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], obesity [body mass index above 30], active dialysis treatment, hypertension, dyspnea, smoking status, corticosteroid use, disseminated cancer, and wound infection), as well as preoperative scores (the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) physical status classification [score 1–4] and wound classification [score 1–4]). Moreover, we evaluated the functional health status (independent versus partially or totally dependent) and calculated the body mass index using the formula “[weight (pounds)/height (inches)2 × 703]”. All extracted preoperative parameters are listed in Table 1. Further, the specific preoperative diagnoses were excerpted and classified according to the underlying ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM codes. Table 2 provides a detailed breakdown of the preoperative diagnoses.
(ii)
In terms of perioperative variables, we analyzed the surgical specialty (otolaryngology, plastic surgery, general surgery, and others), the type of anesthesia (general, monitored anesthesia care, epidural/spinal), and the year of surgery. Additionally, we specified the setting differentiating between in- and outpatient care. The surgical characteristics are displayed in Table 3. For in-depth assessment, we manually classified all cases into single, double, and triple jaw (i.e., the combination of double jaw with concurrent genioplasty) surgeries. To further refine this classification pattern, we specified the operated jaw and identified all patients that underwent concurrent intranasal procedures. This (sub)classification scheme was manually reviewed and independently verified by two investigators (LK and HB). In some cases (“Others”), a more detailed definition of the performed procedure (e.g., “Osteoplasty” or “Osteotomy”) was not applicable due to the limited case information captured. When classifying and specifying the (sub)types of surgery, we closely followed the nomenclature entered in the ACS-NSQIP database. The classification and frequency of the specific types of surgery are summarized in Table 3.
(iii)
As 30-day postoperative outcomes, we evaluated the operating time, the length of hospital stay (LOS), and the destination of discharge (home, other/unknown). LOS was calculated as the difference in days between the date of admission and the date of discharge. Any complication was defined as the occurrence of either patient mortality and/or reoperation and/or readmission and/or unplanned readmission and/or any surgical and/or any medical complication. All surgical complications that are captured in the ACS-NSQIP database and occurred at least once were analyzed (i.e., superficial and deep incision site infections, organ space infections, and bleeding). Likewise, while considering all medical complications documented in the ACS-NSQIP database, we concentrated on those in which at least one case has been reported (i.e., reintubation, infection of the urinary tract, and deep vein thrombosis/thrombophlebitis). The (post)operative outcomes following OS are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Table 6 provides a detailed breakdown of all cases with any complications.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Data were collected and saved in an electronic laboratory notebook (LabArchives, LLC, San Marcos, CA, USA), and evaluated using GraphPad Prism (V9.00 for macOS, GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA). Analyzed with independent t-tests, continuous variables are recorded as means with standard deviations. To measure differences in categorical variables, Pearson’s Chi-square was applied. In cases with fewer events than 10, Fisher’s exact test was applied. The threshold for statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. To identify risk factors for complications, univariable subgroup analysis was carried out, partitioning the cohort into three groups depending on the occurrence of any surgical and medical complications. To eliminate confounding factors, multivariable regression was performed by including all variables found to be significant predictors of the occurrence of any complication.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Demographics and Diagnoses

The study population included 674 patients who underwent OS over a 13-year review period (2008–2020). The mean patient age and BMI were 29 ± 11 years and 26 ± 5.6 kg/m2, respectively. Caucasian patients (n = 450; 67%) represented the majority of our patient cohort, and proportions were equally distributed among the genders (females: n = 336; 50%, males: n = 338; 50%). While obesity (i.e., a BMI over 30; n = 128; 19%) was the most prevalent comorbidity, 7% (n = 47) of patients were current smokers. Detailed demographic data and comorbidities are shown in Table 1. Maxillary hypoplasia was proportionally the most common preoperative diagnosis, accounting for 57% (n = 387) of cases. While about one-fourth (n = 161; 24%) of the patients were diagnosed with mandibular hypoplasia, 89 patients (13%) suffered preoperatively from mandibular hyperplasia. In 5.5% (n = 37) of cases, maxillary hyperplasia was treated surgically with OS. Table 2 provides an overview of the preoperative diagnoses.

3.2. Surgical Characteristics

Almost 100% (n = 672) of OS took place under general anesthesia, with otorhinolaryngologists performing the majority of OS (n = 556; 82%) procedures. While the majority of OS procedures were performed in an outpatient setting (n = 411; 61%), 263 cases (39%) were treated as inpatients (Table 3). Single jaw surgery accounted for 48% (n = 322), with isolated single upper jaw surgery performed in 28% (n = 187) and isolated single lower jaw surgery in 16% (n = 109) of cases. The proportion of double jaw surgery was 40% (n = 270), while 37 patients (5.5%) received triple jaw surgery (Figure 1; Table 3).

3.3. Perioperative Outcomes and Postoperative Surgical and Medical Outcomes

Mean operation time was 183± 115 min, and postoperative LOS was 0.9 ± 4.0 days on average, with 93% (n = 627) of patients discharged home afterward (Table 4). Within the postoperative period of 30 days, no case of death occurred, and five (0.7%) patients returned to the operating room. Any complications, i.e., reoperation, readmission, and surgical or medical complication, were reported in 4.3% (n = 29) of patients. Further details are shown in Table 5 and Table 6. The surgical complication rate was 2.8% (n = 19), with superficial incisional infection (n = 14; 2.1%) as the most common surgical complication. Medical adverse events accounted for 0.7% (n = 5) of cases.
In univariable analysis, outpatient setting (p = 0.008) was identified as a risk factor for the occurrence of surgical complications (Table 7). Multivariable analysis confirmed the outpatient setting as an independent risk factor for the occurrence of any surgical complication (p = 0.03) and readmission (p = 0.02). Patients with insulin-treated diabetes were at significantly higher risk for returning to the operating room (p < 0.0001). Similarly, Asian race was found to be a significant risk factor, not only for reoperation (p = 0.0009) but also for required postoperative blood transfusions (p = 0.003). A significant positive correlation between isolated single lower jaw surgery and the occurrence of any surgical complications (p = 0.03) and, more specifically, superficial incisional infection (p = 0.04) was noted. Further details on the multivariable risk factor assessment are displayed in Table 8.

4. Discussion

Heterogenicity in the type of OS procedure (i.e., mandibular osteotomy, LeFort I osteotomy, or bimaxillary osteotomy, with modifications in segmentation), technical modifications, and level of skeletal discrepancies necessitate comprehensive data pools for valid investigation of adverse side effects [32,33]. Multi-institutional databases, such as the ACS-NSQIP, are predestined to overcome these discrepancies and represent powerful tools for evaluating the generalizable pattern of perioperative workflow.

4.1. Safety of OS

Strikingly, not a single OS-associated death was reported during the 30-day postoperative follow-up. This non-existent mortality risk in combination with the overall low complication rate of 4.3% suggests OS to be relatively safe. Our findings are consistent with the current body of evidence. While Olate et al. and Glen et al. also documented no deaths associated with OS, Ferri et al. and Bacos et al. reported complication rates of 1.5% and 4.5%, respectively [20,32,33,34]. Notably, during the 30-day postoperative follow-up, no case of pulmonary embolism, unplanned reintubation, prolonged ventilator dependence, renal disorder, cerebral vascular accident, cardiac infarction/arrest, or sepsis/septic shock has been reported. Furthermore, no patient suffered postoperatively from wound dehiscence (Table 4). In this context, it is worth mentioning that the patient cohort undergoing OS typically consists predominantly of young and physically healthy candidates. In our study population, the average patient was under 30 years, had a BMI of 26 (numbers below the U.S. national average), and very rarely suffered from comorbidities [35].

4.2. Mandible as Risk Center for Surgical Complications

It is well known that different surgical procedures in the field of OS are associated with varying complication rates [21]. In agreement with the available literature, our findings comprise a significantly higher occurrence of any surgical complication in isolated single lower jaw surgery when compared to other types of corrective jaw surgery (Table 8) [1,10,17]. Special anatomical conditions of the mandible bone, such as its masticatory muscle attachment and articulatory function, perioperative difficulties in the visualization of the inferior alveolar neurovascular bundle, and sophisticated osteotomy and fixation techniques, are factors that may contribute to a more frequent occurrence of adverse events [36]. Moreover, the lower jaw is more susceptible to pseudoarthrosis, which is outlined by an analysis of Ferri et al., where mandibular pseudoarthrosis arose in 4 of 5025 cases (<0.1%) [32]. In terms of surgical site infections (SSI) associated with OS, Cousin et al. reported in a single-institutional study of 512 cases an infection rate of 8%, with 93% located on the mandibular and 7.3% on the maxillary site [37]. Furthermore, reviewing 2910 single-institutional OS cases, Chow et al. found SSIs in 7.4% of patients, equally distributed between the mandible and maxilla [8]. Low infection rates of 1.2%, exclusively affecting the mandible, were reported by Ferri et al. [32]. By comparison, we found SSI rates of 2.7%, indicating a moderate complication rate when averaged over multiple institutions (Table 4). Strikingly, in multivariable analysis, isolated single lower jaw surgery was found to be significantly predestined for higher SSI occurrence. Such higher infection rates in mandibular procedures may be caused by lower blood supply in the mandible (as compared to the maxilla) and bacteria-rich salivary stasis in the lower jaw region due to gravitation forces [38].

4.3. Outpatient OS Surgery as a Risk Factor for Complications

Due to the need for cost control in combination with high-quality treatment options, outpatient OS is of increasing popularity [39]. This trend could be confirmed in our patient sample, with approximately two-thirds of OS being performed in an outpatient setting. However, in our study, outpatient procedures accounted for almost 90% of surgical adverse events (Table 7). Accordingly, the multivariable analysis suggested a significant correlation between the outpatient setting and the occurrence of any surgical complication and readmission (Table 8).
This finding is consistent with previous reports: while Kantar et al. found that OS patients undergoing bimaxillary interventions in an outpatient setting had an almost tenfold higher risk of developing wound complications, Knoff et al. reported elevated admission rates of more than 16% throughout their 9-year experience with outpatient OS [21,40]. However, this statistically significant correlation seems to be mainly due to one specific year, as half of all 20 complication cases in the outpatient setting (10/20) occurred in 2014. Due to escalating health care costs and limited reimbursement from insurance plans, OS patients increasingly considered the more cost-effective outpatient surgery during the early and mid-2010 decade [41,42,43]. This shift to outpatient care is also reflected in our analysis, with a skyrocketing number of outpatient OS in 2014: in this year, we recorded a total of 118 OS procedures, of which 85% (n = 100) were performed in the outpatient setting. Compared to 2013 (n = 18 outpatient procedures), this implies a more than 8-fold increase in outpatient OS load. Particularly in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS), outpatient surgical care must be “at a level equal to or [even] superior to that offered within the hospital environment” [41]. While Berenstein et al. and Hattori et al. concluded that outpatient OS may be performed safely in principle, they also underscored the need for multimodal perioperative management, with adequate patient preparation and close one-to-one nursing in the recovery room [44,45]. Similarly, Dann emphasized that thorough postoperative surveillance was an essential component of his OMFS practice transition from the inpatient model to a surgicenter focusing on outpatient procedures [46]. One might hypothesize that the 2014 surge of outpatient OS has (over)strained the standard of care, with less close-knit patient control and subsequently higher complication rates. Of note, given the trend of decreasing reimbursement by insurance companies at that time, many surgeons have changed their formerly orthognathic practices to parallel that of a cosmetic office (exempt from insurance constraints). It is, therefore, not surprising that between 2014 and 2016, criticisms arose about inadequate preoperative patient screening and lack of intervention options for perioperative adverse events in the outpatient setting, potentially jeopardizing patient safety [41,47,48,49]. These concerns were also evident in a 2014 report revealing that most surgeons—despite the escalated treatment cost—still considered the hospital setting to be the most appropriate for OS [41]. Emerging OS-related operative trends may have also contributed to the peak complication rates in 2014. Indeed, during this period, the “surgery-first approach” has gained popularity, and novel digital tools, such as advanced three-dimensional medical imaging, computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing, have paved their way into the surgical OS workflow [50,51]. Naturally, these novelties require gradual familiarization and might be associated with increased complication rates in their early application stages.
While the underlying rationale for the 2014 complication spike cannot be fully understood, our findings reinforce the call for fine-tuned preoperative planning and critical evaluation of the patient’s eligibility for ambulatory OS. Of note, there is ongoing research aiming to further investigate the risk profile of outpatient OS and decipher the factors associated with patient hospitalization [52].

4.4. Racial Risk Disparities among OS Patients

Investigating racial disparities in the occurrence of OS-related postoperative complications, Asian patients showed a significantly higher risk of surgical complications (Table 6 and Table 7). Multivariable analysis confirmed such racial risk correlation, with statistically significant associations between Asian OS patients and the need for readmission and blood transfusion (Table 8). Notably, when analyzing the occurrence of surgical complications among different races, Pollack et al. also found Asian patients to be at higher risk of hemorrhage [53]. Misumida et al. reiterated the disproportionate risk of bleeding in Asian patients, reporting a significant correlation between Asian ethnicity and the occurrence of major in-hospital bleeding [54]. During treatment with antiplatelets, anticoagulants, and thrombolytic agents, this proneness to bleeding was found to exacerbate, with an incidence of intracranial hemorrhage four times higher and general bleeding events occurring twice as frequently in Asians [55,56,57,58]. Reviewing cases of surgical palate cleft repair, Wu et al. reported increased rates of accidental puncture and fistula among Asian patients [59]. In Asian patients, variances in metabolism and anatomy, such as bimaxillary protrusion, shorter mandibles, as well as a deviated course of the maxillary artery, may lead to different predispositions for surgical risks [60,61,62,63]. Interestingly, among a subset of OS patients, Asian ethnicity was associated with significantly prolonged LOS and markedly higher therapy costs (when compared to Caucasians)—suggesting a higher complexity of OS in Asian patients [64]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to outline the ethnic divergence in surgical outcomes associated with OS and reveal an increased risk of bleeding among OS Asian patients. However, it is important to note that our statistical findings in this context are limited to a small number of patients and should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. More precisely, in our analysis, a total of 71 Asian patients were included, 6 (6/71; 8.5%) of whom experienced a surgical complication. These six cases account for nearly one-third of all reported surgical adverse events (6/19; 31.6%). Four bleeding incidents were recorded, all of which occurred in Asian patients (4/4; 100%). Given the overall small number of patients, these statistical observations should be understood primarily as signals that warrant an in-depth and comprehensive investigation. Future large-scale studies are needed to further validate the risk predisposition of Asian OS patients.
The majority of existing studies evaluating complication risks of OS are limited to single-institution analysis. As in current works, data were collected from one single surgical center. They are not complying with the heterogeneity of surgical and medical conditions between different institutions [33,36,65], not to mention reports of single-surgeon experiences, which describe in general lower complication rates, compared to single- and multi-institutional studies [17,32,66]. While the few multi-institutional studies focus on several subgroups, such as type of surgery or elderly patients, we try to fill the gap of comprehensive investigations in OS, adjusted to state-to-the-art surgical techniques [20,21,67].

4.5. Limitations

This study is the first to analyze risk factors and early outcomes in orthognathic surgery for mandibular and maxillary hypo- and hyperplasia—based on multi-institutional and diversified data collected over 13 years. Nevertheless, when interpreting the findings and drawing research conclusions, its limitations should be carefully considered. General limitations include the retrospective nature of the ACS-NSQIP database associated with inherent biases and confounders. Further, the accuracy and quality of the information entered depend on subjective assessment and practical knowledge [68]. The multi-institutional (and multi-surgeon) extent of the database has been suggested as a potential root of bias, as the quality may vary both within and between the participating institutions. Variance in the overall standard of care between the NSQIP hospitals and differences in surgeons’ skills and expertise are factors that are known to affect perioperative outcomes. However, when evaluating the data quality and interrater-reliability of the ACS-NSQIP database, Shiloach et al. identified low variance in the database’s heterogeneity [69]. It should also be noted that the specialty of oral and maxillofacial surgery is not listed separately in the NSQIP database. Yet, the existence and value of various NSQIP-based studies published in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery relativize this potential limitation. The standardized data capture leads to a lack of procedure-specific information. For example, the type of osteosynthesis and the mode of surgical planning (conventional versus virtual) are not specified. In addition, the catalog misses intraoperative information on short-term (<30 days) procedure-specific complications, such as hematoma and dental/periodontal complications. Certain long-term (>30 days) procedure-specific outcomes, for example, nerve injury, bone non-union, aesthetics, and functionalities are not available. The overall number of complications is relatively low, which limits the significance and generalizability of our results; therefore, conclusions should be drawn with caution. In addition, it should be emphasized that we report only statistical correlations and not causal relationships. The underlying causalities of the observed correlations need to be investigated in future studies.

5. Conclusions

By analyzing 674 cases undergoing OS, we corroborated the general low complication risk in OS performed across multiple institutions. We found that lower jaw surgery was associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications. Our statistical calculations also revealed a positive correlation between outpatient OS care and the occurrence of adverse events which may be primarily due to a peak in complications rates in 2014. In addition, Asian OS patients are at a potentially increased risk for postoperative adverse events. These evidence-based findings may help facial surgeons to refine their OS patient selection and identify risk candidates in the preoperative planning stage. Our findings warrant further investigations, with future studies being needed to decipher the underlying causalities of the statistical correlations presented.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K., D.P.O. and A.C.P.; Methodology, S.K., L.K., D.P.O. and A.C.P.; Formal analysis, S.K., D.Y.M., D.P.O. and A.C.P.; Investigation, S.K., H.B., C.C.H., D.O., L.K. and A.C.P.; Data curation, S.K., D.Y.M., D.P.O. and A.C.P.; Writing—original draft, S.K. and A.C.P.; Writing—review & editing, H.B., C.C.H., D.O., D.Y.M., C.R., B.-S.K., L.H., M.K.-N., G.H., L.K. and D.P.O.; Visualization, A.C.P.; Supervision, G.H., D.P.O. and A.C.P.; Project administration, D.P.O. and A.C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval (Protocol #: 2013P001244) was obtained from our institution (Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Restrictions apply to the availability of these data. Data were obtained from the American College of Surgeons—National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. The application can be submitted at https://accreditation.facs.org/programs/nsqip (accessed on 8 February 2023).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our Quality Program Manager Jill Steinberg MPH, RN, for her help with the ACS NSQIP data acquisition. American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Patel, P.K.; Novia, M.V. The Surgical Tools: The LeFort I, Bilateral Sagittal Split Osteotomy of the Mandible, and the Osseous Genioplasty. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2007, 34, 447–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Reid, R.R. Facial Skeletal Growth and Timing of Surgical Intervention. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2007, 34, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Khechoyan, D.Y. Orthognathic Surgery: General Considerations. Semin. Plast. Surg. 2013, 27, 133–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ploder, O.; Sigron, G.; Adekunle, A.; Burger-Krebes, L.; Haller, B.; Kolk, A. The Effect of Orthognathic Surgery on Tem-poromandibular Joint Function and Symptoms: What are the Risk Factors? A Longitudinal Analysis of 375 Patients. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Surg. 2021, 79, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pachêco-Pereira, C.; Abreu, L.G.; Dick, B.D.; De Luca Canto, G.; Paiva, S.M.; Flores-Mir, C. Patient satisfaction after orthodontic treatment combined with orthognathic surgery: A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2016, 86, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Pachêco-Pereira, C.; Pereira, J.R.; Dick, B.D.; Perez, A.; Flores-Mir, C. Factors associated with patient and parent satisfaction after orthodontic treatment: A systematic review. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2015, 148, 652–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gkantidis, N.; Papamanou, D.A.; Karamolegkou, M.; Dorotheou, D. Esthetic, Functional, and Everyday Life Assessment of Individuals with Cleft Lip and/or Palate. BioMed. Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Chow, L.K.; Singh, B.; Chiu, W.K.; Samman, N. Prevalence of Postoperative Complications After Orthognathic Surgery: A 15-Year Review. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007, 65, 984–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Morris, D.E.; Lo, L.-J.; Margulis, A. Pitfalls in Orthognathic Surgery: Avoidance and Management of Complications. Clin. Plast. Surg. 2007, 34, e17–e29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kim, S.-G.; Park, S.-S. Incidence of Complications and Problems Related to Orthognathic Surgery. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2007, 65, 2438–2444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. D’Agostino, A.; Trevisiol, L.; Gugole, F.; Bondí, V.; Nocini, P.F. Complications of orthognathic surgery: The inferior alveolar nerve. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2010, 21, 1189–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ho, M.; Boyle, M.; Cooper, J.; Dodd, M.; Richardson, D. Surgical complications of segmental Le Fort I osteotomy. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2011, 49, 562–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. De Santana Santos, T.; Albuquerque, K.M.; Santos, M.E.S.M.; Filho, J.R.L. Survey on Complications of Orthognathic Surgery Among Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2012, 23, e423–e430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Williams, B.J.; Currimbhoy, S.; Silva, A.; O’Ryan, F.S. Complications Following Surgically Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2012, 70, 2394–2402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Iannetti, G.; Fadda, T.M.; Riccardi, E.; Mitro, V.; Filiaci, F. Our experience in complications of orthognathic surgery: A retrospective study on 3236 patients. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2013, 17, 369–384. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jędrzejewski, M.; Smektała, T.; Sporniak-Tutak, K.; Olszewski, R. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative complications in orthognathic surgery: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015, 19, 969–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Robl, M.T.; Farrell, B.; Tucker, M. Complications in orthognathic surgery: A report of 1,000 cases. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2014, 26, 599–609. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mehra, P.; Castro, V.; Freitas, R.Z.; Wolford, L.M. Complications of the mandibular sagittal split ramus osteotomy associated with the presence or absence of third molars. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2001, 59, 854–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tabrizi, R.; Pakshir, H.; Nasehi, B. Does the Type of Maxillomandibular Deformity Influence Complication Rate in Or-thognathic Surgery? J. Craniofac. Surg. 2015, 26, e643–e647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bacos, J.T.; Turin, S.Y.; Vaca, E.E.; Gosain, A.K. Major Complications and 30-Day Morbidity for Single Jaw Versus Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery as Re-ported by NSQIP. Cleft Palate Craniofac. J. 2019, 56, 705–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kantar, R.S.; Cammarata, M.J.; Rifkin, W.J.; Alfonso, A.R.; DeMitchell-Rodriguez, E.M.; Noel, D.Y.; Greenfield, J.; Levy-Lambert, D.; Rodriguez, E.D. Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Early Complications. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2019, 30, 352–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Jazayeri, H.E.; Xu, T.; Khavanin, N.; Dorafshar, A.; Peacock, Z.S. Evaluating the July Effect in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Part I-Mandibular Fractures. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 78, 248–253. [Google Scholar]
  23. Harris, J.A.; McCain, J.P.; Carlson, E.R.; Ji, Y.D. Assessment of Intraoperative Time for Head and Neck Cancer Surgeries Compared with Medicare Work Time. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 79, 483–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Carlson, K.J.; Bharadwaj, S.R.; Dougherty, W.M.; Dobratz, E.J. Early Adverse Events Following Pediatric Mandibular Advancement: Analysis of the ACS NSQIP-Pediatric Database. Cleft Palate-Craniofac. J. 2022, 59, 1176–1184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lee, C.C.; Hajibandeh, J.T.; Tannyhill, R.J.; Peacock, Z.S. Is Outpatient Management of Mandibular Fractures Associated with Inflammatory Complications? An ACS-NSQIP Study. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021, 79, 2507–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nagai, M.; Dyalram, D.; Lubek, J. Failure of preoperative co-morbidity indices to predict the successful use of the composite scapula free flap for maxillofacial reconstruction in patients with significant medical co-morbidities. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021, 51, 746–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cohen, S.M.; Rosett, B.; Shifrin, D. An Analysis of Independent Variables Affecting Surgical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Repair of Maxillofacial Trauma: An American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2017, 28, 596–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ali, B.; Choi, E.E.; Barlas, V.; Shetty, A.; Borah, G. Morbidity Associated with Structural Graft Use in Paramedian Forehead Flap. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2020, 32, 888–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Jubbal, K.T.; Agrawal, N.; Hollier, L.H. Analysis of Morbidity, Readmission, and Reoperation After Craniosynostosis Repair in Children. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2017, 28, 401–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Katz, A.; Alerte, E.; Akhavan, A.; Kuruvilla, A.; Ibelli, T.; Liu, H.; Etigunta, S.; Taub, P.J. Can Frailty Indices Predict Surgical Risk in Open Reduction and Fixation of Facial Fractures? J. Craniofac. Surg. 2022, 33, 2573–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lee, C.C.; Wang, T.T.; Hunter, W.P.; Peacock, Z.S. Is Preoperative Serum Albumin Predictive of Adverse Surgical Outcomes in Maxillofacial Fracture Repair? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 80, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ferri, J.; Druelle, C.; Schlund, M.; Bricout, N.; Nicot, R. Complications in orthognathic surgery: A retrospective study of 5025 cases. Int. Orthod. 2019, 17, 789–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Olate, S.; Sigua, E.; Asprino, L.; de Moraes, M. Complications in Orthognathic Surgery. J. Craniofac. Surg. 2018, 29, e158–e161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Glen, P.; Aurora, F.; Thomas, S.; Kissun, D. Orthognathic surgery in COVID-19 times, is it safe?. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2021, 59, 490–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Flegal, K.M.; Carroll, M.D.; Kit, B.K.; Ogden, C.L. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999-2010. Jama 2012, 307, 491–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zaroni, F.M.; Cavalcante, R.C.; da Costa, D.J.; Kluppel, L.E.; Scariot, R.; Rebellato, N.L.B. Complications associated with orthognathic surgery: A retrospective study of 485 cases. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 47, 1855–1860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Cousin, A.-S.; Bouletreau, P.; Giai, J.; Ibrahim, B.; Louvrier, A.; Sigaux, N. Severity and long-term complications of surgical site infections after orthognathic surgery: A retrospective study. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Abdul Wahab, P.U.; Nathan, P.S.; Madhulaxmi, M.; Muthusekhar, M.R.; Loong, S.C.; Abhinav, R.P. Risk Factors for Post-operative Infection Following Single Piece Osteotomy. J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg. 2016, 16, 328–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Farrell, B.B.; Tucker, M.R. Safe, Efficient, and Cost-Effective Orthognathic Surgery in the Outpatient Setting. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2009, 67, 2064–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Knoff, S.B.; Van Sickels, J.E.; Holmgreen, W.C. Outpatient orthognathic surgery: Criteria and a review of cases. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1991, 49, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Farrell, B.B.; Tucker, M.R. Orthognathic Surgery in the Office Setting. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 2014, 26, 611–620. [Google Scholar]
  42. Garg, R.K.; Shan, Y.; Havlena, J.A.; Afifi, A.M. Disparities in Utilization of Jaw Surgery for Treatment of Sleep Apnea: A Nationwide Analysis. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2016, 4, e1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ford, B.; Levin, L.; Drane, H. Trends in orthognathic surgery: A national survey of orthodontists. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2014, 72, e20–e21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hattori, Y.; Uda, H.; Niu, A.; Yoshimura, K.; Sugawara, Y. Ambulatory sagittal split ramus osteotomy: Strategy for enhanced recovery after surgery. Int. J. Oral Max-illofac. Surg. 2022, 8, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Berenstein, D.; Tehrany, G. Safe and Effective Outpatient 2-Jaw Orthognathic Surgery. 2018. Available online: https://aaoms.confex.com/aaoms/am1810/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/13723 (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  46. Dann, J.J. Outpatient oral and maxillofacial surgery: Transition to a surgicenter setting and outcome of the first 200 cases. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1998, 56, 572–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hollenbeck, B.K.; Dunn, R.L.; Suskind, A.M.; Strope, S.A.; Zhang, Y.; Hollingsworth, J.M. Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Their Intended Effects on Outpatient Surgery. Health Serv. Res. 2015, 50, 1491–1507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kondamuri, N.S.; Miller, A.L.; Rathi, V.K.; Miller, L.; Bergmark, R.W.; Patel, T.S.; Gray, S.T. Trends in Ambulatory Surgery Center Utilization for Otolaryngologic Procedures among Medicare Beneficiaries, 2010–2017. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 2020, 162, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Molina, G.; Neville, B.A.; Lipsitz, S.R.; Gibbons, L.; Childers, A.K.; Gawande, A.A.; Berry, W.R.; Haynes, A.B. Postoperative acute care use after freestanding ambulatory surgery. J. Surg. Res. 2016, 205, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Huang, C.; Hsu, S.-P.; Chen, Y.-R. Systematic review of the surgery-first approach in orthognathic surgery. Biomed. J. 2014, 37, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lin, H.-H.; Lonic, D.; Lo, L.-J. 3D printing in orthognathic surgery − A literature review. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2018, 117, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lauwers, F. Outpatient Orthognathic Surgery: “AMBOST” a One Year Study (AMBOST). 2018. Available online: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03486951?view=record (accessed on 8 February 2023).
  53. Pollack, L.M.; Lowder, J.L.; Keller, M.; Chang, S.-H.; Gehlert, S.J.; Olsen, M.A. Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Risk of Surgical Complications and Posthysterectomy Hospitalization among Women Undergoing Hysterectomy for Benign Conditions. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2021, 28, 1022–1032.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Misumida, N.; Ogunbayo, G.O.; Kim, S.M.; Olorunfemi, O.; Elbadawi, A.; Charnigo, R.J.; Abdel-Latif, A.; Ziada, K.M. Higher Risk of Bleeding in Asians Presenting with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Analysis of the National Inpatient Sample Database. Angiology 2017, 69, 548–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Shen, A.Y.-J.; Yao, J.F.; Brar, S.S.; Jorgensen, M.B.; Chen, W. Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage among Patients with Atrial Fibrillation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2007, 50, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kang, J.; Park, K.W.; Palmerini, T.; Stone, G.W.; Lee, M.S.; Colombo, A.; Chieffo, A.; Feres, F.; Abizaid, A.; Bhatt, D.L.; et al. Racial Differences in Ischaemia/Bleeding Risk Trade-Off during Anti-Platelet Therapy: Individual Patient Level Landmark Meta-Analysis from Seven RCTs. Thromb. Haemost. 2018, 119, 149–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Wang, K.L.; Lip, G.Y.; Lin, S.J.; Chiang, C.E. Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Asian Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: Meta-Analysis. Stroke 2015, 46, 2555–2561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Lee, O.S.; Kim, W.; Jang, B.M.; Min, K.H.; Cho, Y.S.; Lee, M.K.; Lee, K.E. Association of risk factors and bleeding complications in Asian patients taking edoxaban. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021, 87, 2121–2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wu, R.T.; Peck, C.J.; Shultz, B.N.; Travieso, R.; Steinbacher, D.M. Racial Disparities in Cleft Palate Repair. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2019, 143, 1738–1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cooke, M.S.; Wei, S.H. A comparative study of southern Chinese and British Caucasian cephalometric standards. Angle Orthod. 1989, 59, 131–138. [Google Scholar]
  61. Gu, Y.; McNamara, J.A.; Sigler, L.M.; Baccetti, T. Comparison of craniofacial characteristics of typical Chinese and Caucasian young adults. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010, 33, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Maeda, S.; Aizawa, Y.; Kumaki, K.; Kageyama, I. Variations in the course of the maxillary artery in Japanese adults. Anat. Sci. Int. 2012, 87, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rischmüller, B.; Meiring, J. Course and Relationships of the Arteria maxillaris. Cells Tissues Organs 1991, 142, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Peck, C.J.; Pourtaheri, N.; Shultz, B.N.; Parsaei, Y.; Yang, J.; Park, K.E.; Allam, O.; Steinbacher, D.M. Racial Disparities in Complications, Length of Stay, and Costs among Patients Receiving Orthognathic Surgery in the United States. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2020, 79, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Damrongsirirat, N.; Kaboosaya, B.; Siriwatana, K.; Subbalekha, K.; Jansisyanont, P.; Pimkhaokham, A. Complications related to orthognathic surgery: A 10-year experience in oral and maxillofacial training center. J. Cranio-Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 50, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Posnick, J.C.; Adachie, A.; Choi, E. Segmental Maxillary Osteotomies in Conjunction with Bimaxillary Orthognathic Surgery: Indications-Safety-Outcome. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2016, 74, 1422–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lee, C.C.; Wang, T.T.; Caruso, D.P.; Williams, R.; Peacock, Z.S. Orthognathic Surgery in Older Patients: Is Age Associated with Perioperative Complications? J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 80, 996–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Haug, V.; Kadakia, N.; Panayi, A.C.; Kauke, M.; Hundeshagen, G.; Diehm, Y.; Fischer, S.; Hirche, C.; Kneser, U.; Pomahac, B. Combined (endo-)vascular intervention and microsurgical lower extremity free flap reconstruction-A propensity score matching analysis in 5386 ACS-NSQIP patients. J. Plast. Reconstr. Aesthet. Surg. 2021, 74, 1031–1040. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shiloach, M.; Frencher, S.K., Jr.; Steeger, J.E.; Rowell, K.S.; Bartzokis, K.; Tomeh, M.G.; Richards, K.E.; Ko, C.Y.; Hall, B.L. Toward Robust Information: Data Quality and Inter-Rater Reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J. Am. Coll. Surg. 2010, 210, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 01444 g001 550
Figure 1. Procedure distribution. The majority of patients underwent single jaw surgery (47.8%), followed by double jaw surgery (40.1%). Other procedures, which constituted 5.3% of all procedures included, for example, unspecified osteoplasties and combined genioplasty plus intranasal procedures.
Figure 1. Procedure distribution. The majority of patients underwent single jaw surgery (47.8%), followed by double jaw surgery (40.1%). Other procedures, which constituted 5.3% of all procedures included, for example, unspecified osteoplasties and combined genioplasty plus intranasal procedures.
Jcm 12 01444 g001
Table
Table 1. Patient demographics and comorbidities. Reported as n (%).
Table 1. Patient demographics and comorbidities. Reported as n (%).
CharacteristicJaw Surgery (n = 674)
Demographics
Sex
Female (n)336 (50)
Male (n)338 (50)
Age, mean ± SD29 ± 11
BMI, mean ± SD26 ± 5.6
Race
American Indian or Alaskan native2 (0.3)
Asian71 (11)
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander0 (0.0)
Black or African American53 (7.9)
White450 (67)
Other or unknown98 (15)
Preoperative health and comorbidities
Diabetes10 (1.5)
Insulin treated diabetes4 (0.6)
COPD1 (0.1)
Obesity128 (19)
Dialysis1 (0.1)
Hypertension26 (3.9)
Dyspnea3 (0.4)
Current smoker47 (7.0)
Corticosteroid use7 (1.0)
Disseminated cancer1 (0.1)
Wound infection1 (0.1)
ASA class
1—No disturbance359 (53)
2—Mild disturbance294 (44)
3—Severe disturbance21 (3.1)
4—Life-threatening0 (0.0)
Wound class
1—Clean44 (6.5)
2—Clean/Contaminated623 (92)
3—Contaminated7 (1.0)
4—Dirty/Infected0 (0.0)
Functional Status
Independent673 (100)
Partially or Totally Dependent0 (0.0)
Table
Table 2. Preoperative diagnoses according to ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM. Reported as n (%).
Table 2. Preoperative diagnoses according to ICD-9-CM and ICD-10-CM. Reported as n (%).
DiagnosesJaw Surgery (n = 674)
Mandibular Hypoplasia161 (24)
Mandibular Hyperplasia89 (13)
Maxillary Hypoplasia387 (57)
Maxillary Hyperplasia37 (5.5)
Table
Table 3. Surgical characteristics. Reported as n (%).
Table 3. Surgical characteristics. Reported as n (%).
CharacteristicJaw Surgery (n = 674)
Type of Surgery
Single Jaw Surgery322 (47.8)
Isolated Single Upper Jaw Surgery187 (27.7)
Isolated Single Lower Jaw Surgery109 (16.2)
Single Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure3 (0.4)
Single Jaw Surgery with concurrent genioplasty23 (3.4)
Isolated Genioplasty9 (1.3)
Double Jaw Surgery270 (40.1)
Isolated Double Jaw Surgery260 (38.6)
Double Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure10 (1.5)
Triple Jaw Surgery37 (5.5)
Isolated Triple Jaw Surgery31 (4.6)
Triple Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure6 (0.9)
Other36 (5.3)
Surgical Specialty
Otolaryngology556 (82)
Plastics84 (12)
General Surgery29 (4.3)
Other5 (0.7)
Type of anesthesia
General672 (100)
Other/Unknown2 (0.3)
Year of surgery
200811 (1.6)
200914 (2.1)
201022 (3.3)
20115 (0.7)
201228 (4.2)
201328 (4.2)
2014118 (18)
2015117 (17)
2016111 (16)
201777 (11)
201831 (4.6)
201969 (10)
202043 (6.3)
Setting
Inpatient263 (39)
Outpatient411 (61)
Table
Table 4. Operative and postoperative outcomes following jaw surgery. Reported as n (%), unless otherwise stated.
Table 4. Operative and postoperative outcomes following jaw surgery. Reported as n (%), unless otherwise stated.
OutcomeJaw Surgery (n = 674)
Length of Hospital Stay, Mean days ± SD0.9 ± 4.0
Operative time, Mean minutes ± SD183 ± 115
Any Complication29 (4.3)
Mortality within 30 days0 (0.0)
Reoperation5 (0.7)
Readmission5 (0.7)
Unplanned Readmission5 (0.7)
Surgical Complication19 (2.8)
Superficial Incisional Infection14 (2.1)
Deep Incisional Infection3 (0.4)
Organ Space Infection2 (0.3)
Bleeding4 (0.6)
Dehiscence0 (0.0)
Medical Complication5 (0.7)
Reintubation2 (0.3)
Urinary Tract Infection2 (0.3)
Deep Vein Thrombosis/Thrombophlebitis1 (0.1)
Pulmonary Embolism0 (0.0)
Unplanned Reintubation0 (0.0)
Pneumonia0 (0.0)
Ventilator Dependence > 48 h0 (0.0)
Progressive Renal Insufficiency0 (0.0)
Acute Renal Failure0 (0.0)
Stroke/Cerebral Vascular Accident0 (0.0)
Cardiac Arrest0 (0.0)
Myocardial Infarction0 (0.0)
Sepsis0 (0.0)
Septic Shock0 (0.0)
Discharge destination
Home627 (93)
Other/unknown47 (7.0)
Table
Table 5. Distribution of procedures with the type-specific occurrence of any complication.
Table 5. Distribution of procedures with the type-specific occurrence of any complication.
Type of SurgeryTotalAny CompAny Comp/Total%
Single Jaw Surgery322144.3
Isolated Single Upper Jaw Surgery18773.7
Isolated Single Lower Jaw Surgery10965.5
Single Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure300.0
Single Jaw Surgery with concurrent genioplasty2314.3
Isolated Genioplasty900.0
Double Jaw Surgery270124.4
Isolated Double Jaw Surgery260114.2
Double Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure10110
Triple Jaw Surgery3712.7
Isolated Triple Jaw Surgery3113.2
Triple Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure600.0
Other3625.5
Table
Table 6. Detailed information on all cases with complications. Adverse events occurred in 29 cases (4.3%). All readmissions were unplanned.
Table 6. Detailed information on all cases with complications. Adverse events occurred in 29 cases (4.3%). All readmissions were unplanned.
RaceReoperationReadmissionSurgical ComplicationMedical Complication
Isolated Single Upper Jaw Surgery
Male, 23 YearsCaucasianX
Female, 29 YearsCaucasian 1 (Reintubation)
Male, 42 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Female, 18 YearsUnknown 1 (Reintubation)
Male, 23 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Female, 26 YearsAsianX 1 (Bleeding)
Female, 56 YearsCaucasian 1 (Urinary Tract Infection)
Isolated Single Lower Jaw Surgery
Female, 20 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Female, 55 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Male, 20 YearsAsian 2 (SSI + Bleeding)
Female, 32 YearsCaucasianXX
Male, 36 YearsCaucasian 2 (SSI + OSI)
Male, 24 YearsAsian 1 (SSI)
Single Jaw Surgery with concurrent genioplasty
Female, 19 YearsAsian X2 (OSI + Bleeding)
Isolated Double Jaw Surgery
Male, 20 YearsUnknown X
Male, 29 YearsCaucasianX
Female, 39 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Male, 19 YearsAsian 1 (DII)
Male, 33 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Female, 20 YearsCaucasian 1 (Urinary Tract Infection)
Male, 39 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Male, 22 YearsAsian X2 (SSI + Bleeding)
Female, 38 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Male, 43 YearsUnknown 1 (DII)
Female, 40 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Double Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure
Female, 26 YearsCaucasian 1 (DII)
Isolated Triple Jaw Surgery
Female, 20 YearsCaucasian 1 (SSI)
Others
including each procedure entered
Mandibular Reconstruction + Mandibulectomy + Free Flap Reconstruction (Male, 61 Years)Caucasian 1 (Deep Vein Thrombosis)
Mandibular Osteotomy + Free Skin Flap (Male, 42 Years)CaucasianXX
SSI: superficial incisional infection; OSI: organ space infection; DII: deep incisional infection.
Table
Table 7. Risk factors for complications. Reported as n (%), unless otherwise stated. Statistically significant p values are highlighted in bold.
Table 7. Risk factors for complications. Reported as n (%), unless otherwise stated. Statistically significant p values are highlighted in bold.
Any Complication Surgical Complication Medical Complication
CharacteristicYes
(n = 29)		No
(n = 645)		p ValueYes
(n = 19)		No
(n = 655)		p ValueYes
(n = 5)		No
(n = 669)		p Value
Demographics
Sex 0.58 >0.99 >0.99
Female13 (45)323 (50) 9 (47)327 (50) 2 (40)334 (50)
Male16 (55)322 (50) 10 (53)328 (50) 3 (60)335 (50)
Age, mean ± SD32 ± 1229 ± 11 31 ± 1129 ± 11 37 ± 329 ± 11
BMI, mean ± SD25 ± 626 ± 6 26 ± 626 ± 6 22 ± 326 ± 6
Race 0.21 0.011 0.88
American Indian/Alaskan native0 (0.0)2 (0.3) 0 (0.0)2 (0.3) 0 (0.0)2 (0.3)
Asian6 (21)65 (10) 6 (32)66 (10) 0 (0.0)71 (11)
Black/African American0 (0.0)53 (8.2) 0 (0.0)53 (8.1) 0 (0.0)53 (7.9)
White20 (69)430 (67) 12 (63)437 (67) 4 (80)446 (67)
Other or unknown3 (10)95 (15) 1 (5.3)97 (15) 1 (20)97 (14)
Setting 0.44 0.008 0.38
Outpatient20 (69)391 (61) 17 (89)394 (60) 2 (40)409 (61)
Inpatient9 (31)254 (39) 2 (11)261 (40) 3 (60)260 (39)
Preop health/comorbidities
Diabetes1 (3.4)9 (1.4)0.360 (0.0)10 (1.5)>0.990 (0.0)10 (1.5)>0.99
Insulin treated diabetes1 (3.4)3 (0.5)0.160 (0.0)4 (0.6)>0.990 (0.0)4 (0.6)>0.99
COPD0 (0.0)1 (0.2)>0.990 (0.0)1 (0.2)>0.990 (0.0)1 (0.1)>0.99
Obesity4 (14)124 (19)0.633 (16)125 (19)>0.990 (0.0)128 (19)0.59
Hypertension2 (6.9)24 (3.7)0.312 (11)24 (3.7)0.160 (0.0)26 (3.9)>0.99
Dyspnea0 (0.0)3 (0.5)>0.990 (0.0)3 (0.5)>0.990 (0.0)3 (0.4)>0.99
Current smoker2 (6.9)45 (7.0)>0.991 (5.3)46 (7.0)>0.991 (0.0)46 (6.9)0.30
Corticosteroid use0 (0.0)7 (1.1)>0.990 (0.0)7 (1.1)>0.990 (0.0)7 (1.0)>0.99
Wound infection0 (0.0)1 (0.2)>0.990 (0.0)1 (0.2)>0.990 (0.0)1 (0.0)>0.99
ASA class 0.27 0.71 0.05
1—No disturbance12 (41)347 (54) 10 (53)349 (53) 1 (20)358 (54)
2—Mild disturbance15 (52)279 (43) 9 (47)285 (44) 3 (60)291 (43)
3—Severe disturbance2 (6.9)19 (2.9) 0 (0.0)21 (3.2) 1 (20)20 (3.0)
4—Life-threatening0 (0.0)0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Wound class 0.60 0.88 0.46
1—Clean3 (10)41 (6.4) 1 (5.3)43 (6.6) 1 (20)43 (6.4)
2—Clean/Contaminated26 (90)597 (93) 18 (95)605 (92) 4 (80)619 (93)
3—Contaminated0 (0.0)7 (1.1) 0 (0.0)7 (1.1) 0 (0.0)7 (1.0)
4—Dirty/Infected0 (0.0)0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Table
Table 8. Multivariable assessment of different complication occurrence for all jaw surgery patients.
Table 8. Multivariable assessment of different complication occurrence for all jaw surgery patients.
ComplicationOR95% CIp-Value
Reoperation
Insulin treated diabetes0.230.14–0.31<0.0001
Outpatient−0.01−0.03–0.000.04
Readmission
Isolated Triple Jaw Surgery−0.57−1.06–−0.080.02
Race, Asian0.430.11–0.760.009
Obesity Class 2; BMI = 35–39.9−0.62−1.11–−0.130.01
Outpatient0.240.03–0.450.02
Any surgical complication
Isolated Single Lower Jaw Surgery0.040.00–0.080.03
Outpatient0.030.00–0.060.03
Superficial Incisional Infection
Isolated Single Lower Jaw Surgery0.040.00–0.070.04
Deep Incisional Infection
Double Jaw Surgery with concurrent intranasal procedure0.100.06–0.15<0.0001
Organ Space Infection
Single Jaw Surgery with concurrent genioplasty0.050.03–0.060.0002
Hypertension0.040.02–0.060.0007
Bleeding
Single Jaw Surgery with concurrent genioplasty0.050.02–0.07<0.0001
Race, Asian0.010.00–0.020.003
Any medical complication
ASA, Class 30.050.01–0.100.01
DVT
Other0.030.01–0.040.0002
History of COPD−0.09−0.17–−0.020.02
Current smoker0.020.01–0.030.0007
Underweight; BMI < 18.50.030.02–0.05<0.0001
ASA, Class 30.060.04–0.07<0.0001
Wound Class 10.020.01–0.030.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Knoedler, S.; Baecher, H.; Hoch, C.C.; Obed, D.; Matar, D.Y.; Rendenbach, C.; Kim, B.-S.; Harhaus, L.; Kauke-Navarro, M.; Hundeshagen, G.; et al. Early Outcomes and Risk Factors in Orthognathic Surgery for Mandibular and Maxillary Hypo- and Hyperplasia: A 13-Year Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Database. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041444

AMA Style

Knoedler S, Baecher H, Hoch CC, Obed D, Matar DY, Rendenbach C, Kim B-S, Harhaus L, Kauke-Navarro M, Hundeshagen G, et al. Early Outcomes and Risk Factors in Orthognathic Surgery for Mandibular and Maxillary Hypo- and Hyperplasia: A 13-Year Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Database. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(4):1444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041444

Chicago/Turabian Style

Knoedler, Samuel, Helena Baecher, Cosima C. Hoch, Doha Obed, Dany Y. Matar, Carsten Rendenbach, Bong-Sung Kim, Leila Harhaus, Martin Kauke-Navarro, Gabriel Hundeshagen, and et al. 2023. "Early Outcomes and Risk Factors in Orthognathic Surgery for Mandibular and Maxillary Hypo- and Hyperplasia: A 13-Year Analysis of a Multi-Institutional Database" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 4: 1444. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041444

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop