The use of telehealth during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in oral and maxillofacial surgery : A qualitative analysis

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Incidence of lingual nerve damage following surgical extraction of mandibular third molars with lingual flap retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine more recent data to determine the extent of lingual nerve injury (LNI) following the surgical extraction of mandibular third molars (M3M). A systematic search of three databases [PubMed, Web of Science and OVID] was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The inclusion criteria encompassed studies on patients who underwent surgical M3M extraction using the buccal approach without lingual flap retraction (BA-), buccal approach with lingual flap retraction (BA+), and lingual split technique (LS). The outcome measures expressed in LNI count were converted to risk ratios (RR). Twenty-seven studies were included in the systematic review, nine were eligible for meta-analysis. Combined RR for LNI (BA+ versus BA-) was 4.80 [95% Confidence Interval:3.28-7.02; P<0.00001]. The prevalence of permanent LNI following BA-, BA+ and LS (mean%±SD%) was 0.18±0.38, 0.07±0.21, and 0.28±0.48 respectively. This study concluded that there was an increased risk of temporary LNI following M3M surgical extractions using BA+ and LS. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a significant advantage of BA+ or LS in reducing permanent LNI risk. Operators should use lingual retraction with caution due to the increased temporary LNI risk

The Use of Telehealth in Australia During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic for Medical Practitioners: A retrospective epidemiological analysis: Telehealth usage during COVID-19

Introduction: New Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) telehealth item codes were added in 2020 to allow Australians to gain access to medical services during COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. Previous studies have been conducted on the utilisation of specific MBS item codes however none have been conducted on all medical practitioner telehealth item codes. Objective: This retrospective epidemiological analysis aims to determine the utilisation rate of newly introduced medical practitioner telehealth MBS item codes and compare them with the usage of existing in-person item codes Methods: The utilisation of 319 MBS item codes were extracted from the Medicare Statistics Database between March 2020 to March 2021. Using count and population statistics a population adjusted rate was generated and a linear regression analysis undertaken. Results: A total of 199,059,309 in-person and telehealth services (Male, n=84,007,935; 42.2%, Female, n=115,051,374; 57.8%) were utilised during the study period. 147,697,104 were in-person compared to 51,191,898 telehealth services. In-person usage decreased by 27.5% while telehealth increased by 358.8%. In-person utilisation increased by 32.4% as the year continued while the telehealth utilisation decreased by 40.7%. There was a non-significant increase in total in-person item code utilisation (p=0.76) and a non-significant decrease (p=0.32) in the total telehealth item codes used Conclusion: There was initially increased usage of telehealth especially during lockdown restrictions. However, when lockdowns eased, usage of telehealth decreased while in-person increased. Regardless, telehealth item codes continued to be used despite changes to eligibility criteria and lockdown restrictions easing. Hence, it appears that patients are accepting of telehealth as a healthcare delivery method