Browsing by Author "Allori, Alexander C"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Hardware Removal in Craniomaxillofacial Trauma: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Management Algorithm.
    (Annals of plastic surgery, 2015-11) Cahill, Thomas J; Gandhi, Rikesh; Allori, Alexander C; Marcus, Jeffrey R; Powers, David; Erdmann, Detlev; Hollenbeck, Scott T; Levinson, Howard

    Background

    Craniomaxillofacial (CMF) fractures are typically treated with open reduction and internal fixation. Open reduction and internal fixation can be complicated by hardware exposure or infection. The literature often does not differentiate between these 2 entities; so for this study, we have considered all hardware exposures as hardware infections. Approximately 5% of adults with CMF trauma are thought to develop hardware infections. Management consists of either removing the hardware versus leaving it in situ. The optimal approach has not been investigated. Thus, a systematic review of the literature was undertaken and a resultant evidence-based approach to the treatment and management of CMF hardware infections was devised.

    Materials and methods

    A comprehensive search of journal articles was performed in parallel using MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ScienceDirect electronic databases. Keywords and phrases used were maxillofacial injuries; facial bones; wounds and injuries; fracture fixation, internal; wound infection; and infection. Our search yielded 529 articles. To focus on CMF fractures with hardware infections, the full text of English-language articles was reviewed to identify articles focusing on the evaluation and management of infected hardware in CMF trauma. Each article's reference list was manually reviewed and citation analysis performed to identify articles missed by the search strategy. There were 259 articles that met the full inclusion criteria and form the basis of this systematic review. The articles were rated based on the level of evidence. There were 81 grade II articles included in the meta-analysis.

    Result

    Our meta-analysis revealed that 7503 patients were treated with hardware for CMF fractures in the 81 grade II articles. Hardware infection occurred in 510 (6.8%) of these patients. Of those infections, hardware removal occurred in 264 (51.8%) patients; hardware was left in place in 166 (32.6%) patients; and in 80 (15.6%) cases, there was no report as to hardware management. Finally, our review revealed that there were no reported differences in outcomes between groups.

    Conclusions

    Management of CMF hardware infections should be performed in a sequential and consistent manner to optimize outcome. An evidence-based algorithm for management of CMF hardware infections based on this critical review of the literature is presented and discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Provision and Utilization of Team- and Community-Based Operative Care for Patients With Cleft Lip/Palate in North Carolina.
    (The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 2020-11) Le, Elliot; Shrader, Peter; Bosworth, Hayden; Hurst, Jillian; Goldstein, Benjamin; Drake, Amelia; Wood, Jeyhan; David, Lisa R; Runyan, Christopher M; Vissoci, Joao Ricardo Nickenig; Harker, Matthew; Allori, Alexander C

    Objective

    To characterize operative care for cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) based on location (ie, from American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association [ACPA]-approved multidisciplinary teams or from community providers).

    Design

    Cross-sectional analysis of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and State Ambulatory Surgery & Services Database databases for North Carolina from 2012 to 2015.

    Setting/patients and main outcome measures

    Clinical encounters for children with CL/P undergoing operative procedures were identified, classified by location as "Team" versus "Community," and characterized by demographic, geographic, clinical, and procedural factors. A secondary evaluation reviewed concordance of team and community practices with an ACPA guideline related to coordination of care.

    Results

    Three teams and 39 community providers performed a total of 3010 cleft-related procedures across 2070 encounters. Teams performed 69.7% of total volume and performed the majority of cleft procedures, including cleft lip repair, palate repair, alveolar bone grafting, and correction of velopharyngeal insufficiency. Community locations principally offered myringotomy and rhinoplasty. Team care was associated with higher guideline concordance.

    Conclusions

    American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association -approved team-based care accounts for the majority of cleft-related care in North Carolina; however, a substantial volume of cleft-related procedures was provided by community providers, with 3 providers accounting for the vast majority of community cases.