Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Evaluating Surgical Accuracy in Bimaxillary Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mandible-First versus
Shunchao Yan1, Yarui Wu2, Chongxu Qiao1
1Department of Plastic Surgery, The Affiliated Friendship Plastic Surgery Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China.
Background:
Mandible-first surgery (MdFS) has gained attention as an alternative to the traditional maxilla-first surgery (MxFS) in bimaxillary procedures. Given the distinct sequence of operations between these approaches, evaluating the clinical advantages of MdFS compared to MxFS is crucial for optimizing surgical decision-making. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine intraoperative achievability and postoperative stability between these two surgical approaches.
Methods:
A thorough literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and MEDLINE, covering articles published from 2013 to 2023. Studies included were retrospective, prospective, and randomized trials that compared the accuracy and/or stability of MdFS with MxFS. The primary endpoint for the meta-analysis was the standardized mean difference in surgical accuracy for translational movements, with a secondary focus on rotational accuracy.
Results:
A total of 11 studies encompassing 712 patients met the inclusion criteria. The analysis suggested that MdFS might reduce accuracy in the sagittal dimension (CI, 0.05 to 0.74) but offered greater achievability in the vertical direction (CI, - 0.47 to - 0.07). Additionally, MdFS was associated with a relatively posterior (CI, - 1.18 to - 0.60) and inferior (CI, - 0.64 to - 0.07) positioning of the maxillomandibular complex.
Conclusion:
Despite certain limitations, our findings indicate that MdFS can achieve clinical outcomes similar to MxFS in terms of both accuracy and stability. However, further researches with larger sample sizes and more rigorous study designs are necessary to validate these conclusions.
Level Of Evidence Iii:
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
