Login / Signup

Identifying the role of preoperative oral/dental health care in post-esophagectomy pulmonary complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Papakonstantinou DimitriosAikaterini-Venedikti FournaridiKonstantina TasioudiIrene LidorikiAdamantios MichalinosGeorgios KonstantoudakisDimitrios Schizas
Published in: Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus (2022)
Esophageal surgery has traditionally been associated with high morbidity rates. Despite the recent advances in the field of minimally invasive surgery and the introduction of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols, post-esophagectomy morbidity, especially that attributed to the respiratory system, remains a concern. In that respect, preoperative intensification of oral care or introduction of structured oral/dental hygiene regimens may lead to tangible postoperative benefits associated with reduced morbidity (respiratory or otherwise) and length of hospital stay. A systematic literature search of the Medline, Embase, Web of Knowledge and clinicaltrials.gov databases was undertaken for studies reporting use of preoperative oral/dental hygiene improvement regimens in patients scheduled to undergo esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. After screening 796 unique studies, seven were deemed eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Pooled results indicated equivalent postoperative pneumonia rates in the oral pretreatment group and control groups (8.7 vs. 8.5%, respectively); however, the odds for developing pneumonia were reduced by 50% in the pretreatment group (odds ratio 0.5, 95% C.I. 0.37 to 0.69, P < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was detected in the anastomotic leak (odds ratio 0.93, 95% C.I. 0.38 to 2.24, P = 0.87) and length of stay outcomes (mean difference 0.63, 95% C.I. -3.22 to 4.47, P = 0.75). Oral/dental pretreatment reduces the odds for developing post-esophagectomy pneumonia. This finding should be cautiously interpreted given the significant limitations inherent in this meta-analysis. Further investigation via well-designed clinical trials is thus warranted before implementation in routine practice can be recommended.
Keyphrases