Page 109 - Demo

Stock or patient-specific TMJ replacement1074Statistical analysisThe outcomes between the stock and PSI systems were based on the weighted mean gain of the MMO, and the weighted mean gain or reduction in VAS scores for pain and diet, and their seWMD. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and standard error of WMD (seWMD) between pre- and postoperative MMO, pain, and diet scores were calculated using the following formulas:91the subject, this criterion was leo out of the analysis. While the item “adequate sta@s@cal analysis” is normally only used for compara@ve trials, it was also used for the included ar@cles to evaluate the quality of analysis between pre- and post-opera@ve results. Study variables and data collec&onAoer assessing the eligibility of all studies retrieved, the following data were extracted when available: authors, year of publica@on, number of pa@ents included, sex, mean age of pa@ents (in years), type of TMJ TJR, @me of follow-up (in months), MMO (in mm), and pain and diet measurements using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) measurement. All VAS scores were based on the pa@ents’ subjec@ve evalua@on and ranged from 0 to 10. For pain, a score of 0 meant a total absence of pain, while a score of 10 was considered the worst imaginable pain someone could experience. A dietary VAS score of 0 indicated that the pa@ent could only eat liquids, while a score of 10 reflected solid foods.The use of a TMJ prosthesis was considered the predictor variable, and the MMO and VAS pain score were the main outcome variables. The diet VAS score was considered the secondary outcome variable, which was further analyzed to determine the effect of physiotherapy.Several authors were contacted to determine if there was any duplica@on within their pa@ent groups. As a result, not all data provided by Mercuri et al.(11–13) were included. Also the ar@cles by Gruber et al.(14) and SideboZom et al.(15) used the same pa@ent popula@on. We decided to use the data provided by SideboZom et al.(15) at 1 year and at 3 years post-opera@vely by Gruber et al.(14) to obtain as many pa@ents as possible. Gonzalez-Perez et al.(16) reported on the same pa@ent group twice, albeit one ar@cle discussed the stock TMJ TJR, while the other evaluated both the stock and custom(ized) TJR systems.(17) Only the data obtained from the ar@cle discussing both pa@ent groups were included. Sta&s&cal analysisThe outcomes between the stock and PSI systems were based on the weighted mean gain of the MMO, and the weighted mean gain or reduc@on in VAS scores for pain and diet, and their seWMD. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and standard error of WMD (seWMD) between pre- and postopera@ve MMO, pain, and diet scores were calculated using the following formulas:WMD = 𝑋𝑋!\se(WMD) = -+!\,!\++!%+'$%!#\,!%+'$%!#\Forest plots were constructed for both primary and secondary outcomes, showing the summary and 95% CI estimated in the meta-analyses. Mean difference were pooled using the generic inverse variance method. Arandom effect model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was used, variation in effects due to differences in study populations and methods were expected. Heterogeneity between subgroups was evaluated using the χ2 test and I2 metrics, where P < 0.1 or I2> 50% indicated significant heterogeneity.(18) The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane IMS, Copenhagen, Denmark). Ethics approvalInternal ethical committee approval and confirmation of adherence to the Helsinki Declaration were not necessary for this literature review.ResultsStudy inclusionsThe initial search and selection was independently performed by two of the authors. Their results were then compared, and a third reviewer was asked to evaluate the reference in case of conflict. This search returned 1581 published articles. After removing the duplicates, 1078 articles were screened, and 1026 were excluded based on the contents of the title (n = Nikolas de Meurechy NW.indd 107 05-06-2024 10:14