Meta-analysis of the survival rate and postoperative infection rate of primary and secondary implants after vascularized fibula transplantation for reconstruction of jaw defects

Objectives Vascularized fibula flap transplantation is the most effective and common method to repair the jaw defects. In addition, implantation is the first choice to restore dentition on the graft fibula. Implants are usually implanted at least 6 months after fibula transplantation. Primary implantation of implants during surgery can restore the dentition earlier, but whether this method can achieve the same restorative effect as secondary implantation is still uncertain. This article aims to compare the survival rate and complications between primary and secondary implantation through meta-analysis.Methods This meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA protocol and the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (CBM) according to established inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted to compare the survival rate and postoperative infection rate of primary and secondary implantation.Results Seven studies were involved in our research, involving 186 patients. Five of the studies detailed implant success in 106 patients (primary implantation 50, secondary implantation 56), and four studies documented infection after implantation in 117 patients (primary implantation 52, secondary implantation 65); the survival rate of the primary implantation was 93.3%, and the incidence of postoperative infection was 17.3%. The survival rate of the secondary implantation was 93.4%, and 23.1% had postoperative infection. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the survival rate between primary implantation and secondary implantation, OR = 0.813 (95% CI 0.383-1.725, P = 0.589 > 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative infection, OR = 0.614 (95% CI 0.239-1.581, P = 0.312 > 0.05).Conclusions Based on the results of this study, the research found no significant difference in the survival rate or infection rates between primary and secondary implantation. After appropriate indications selection, primary implantation can be used to reconstruct the dentition with less waiting time, reduce the impact of radiotherapy, and bring a higher quality of life for patients.

Automated summary

This study compared the survival rate and infection rates between primary and secondary implantation through meta-analysis. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the survival rate or infection rates between the two methods. Primary implantation can be used to reconstruct dentition with less waiting time, reduce the impact of radiotherapy, and improve the quality of life for patients.