Investigation of the clinician satisfaction for the single-puncture and double-puncture arthrocentesis of temporomandibular joint

Year 2024, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 87 - 91, 26.01.2024

Sara Samur Ergüven Selda Aksoy M.fatih Şentürk Aydın Ozkan Çiğdem Yücel

https://doi.org/10.54617/adoklinikbilimler.1392259

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinician satisfaction of single-puncture arthrocentesis and double-puncture arthrocentesis in cadavers.
Material and Method: The study was conducted on 10 fresh cadaver temporomandibular joints bilaterally. Single-puncture arthrocentesis was randomly conducted on one side chosen by coin toss and double-puncture arthrocentesis on the other side. The main outcome variable was clinician satisfaction and measured using 0-10 point Likert scale.
Results: Twenty arthrocentesis procedures were completed. The mean clinical satisfaction scores for single-puncture arthrocentesis and double-puncture arthrocentesis were 8.1 and 4.8, respectively. A statistically significant difference was found between the techniques in terms of main outcome variable, and it was significantly lower in double-puncture arthrocentesis (p=0.001).
Conclusion: Single-puncture arthrocentesis showed higher clinician satisfaction compared to double-puncture arthrocentesis.

Keywords

Arthrocentesis, clinician satisfaction, temporomandibular disorder, temporomandibular joint

Ethical Statement

The present study was approved by the Gülhane Scientific Research Ethics Committee (registration date/number; 20.01.2022/2022-49)

Tek girişli ve iki girişli temporomandibular eklem artrosentezine yönelik klinisyen memnuniyetinin değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı kadavralarda uygulanan tek girişli artrosentez ve çift girişli artrosentez yöntemlerinin klinisyen memnuniyeti üzerine etkisinin değerlendirilmesidir.
Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışma on taze kadavranın temporomandibular eklem bölgeleri üzerinde çift taraflı olarak gerçekleştirilmiştir. Rastgele seçilen bir tarafta tek girişli artrosentez, diğer tarafta ise çift girişli artrosentez işlemi uygulanmıştır. Ana sonuç değişkeni klinisyen memnuniyeti olarak belirlenmiş olup Likert ölçeği (0-10 arası) ile kaydedilmiştir.
Bulgular: Yirmi artrosentez işlemi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Ortalama klinisyen memnuniyet skorları tek girişli ve çift girişli artrosentez yöntemleri için sırasıyla, 8.1 ve 4.8 olarak saptanmıştır. Teknikler arasında ana sonuç değişkeni açısından istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmış olup, çift girişli artrosentez yönteminde klinisyen memnuniyeti daha düşük olarak belirlenmiştir (p=0.001).
Sonuç: Tek girişli artrosentez iki girişli artrosenteze göre daha yüksek klinisyen memnuniyeti ile ilişkili bulunmuştur.

Keywords

Artrosentez, klinisyen memnuniyeti, temporomandibular bozukluk, temporomandibular eklem

Ethical Statement

Çalışma ticari olarak satılan kadavra ve kadavra parçaları üzerinde gerçekleştirlmiş olup, etik kurul onayı gerektirmemektedir.

References

• Referans1. Nitzan DW, Dolwick MF, Martinez GA. Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: a simplified treatment for severe, limited mouth opening. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1991; 49: 1163-67.
• Referans2. Grossmann E, Poluha RL. Comparison between TMJ arthrocentesis techniques with different needle positions: A randomized single-blind controlled clinical trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2021; 49: 368-72.
• Referans3. Grossmann E , Ferreira LA, Poluha RL, Setogutti E, Iwaki LCV, Iwaki Filho L. Comparison of two needles arthrocentesis versus double needle cannula arthrocentesis in the treatment of temporomandibular disc displacement. Cranio 2022; 40: 358-64.
• Referans4. Şentürk MF, Yazıcı T, Gülşen U. Techniques and modifications for TMJ arthrocentesis: A literature review. Cranio. 2018; 36: 332- 40.
• Referans5. Folle FS, Poluha RL, Setogutti ET, Grossmann E. Double puncture versus single puncture arthrocentesis for the management of unilateral temporomandibular joint disc displacement without reduction: A randomized controlled trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018; 46: 2003-7.
• Referans6. Bayramoğlu Z, Tozoğlu S. Comparison of single- and doublepuncture arthrocentesis for the treatment of temporomandibular joint disorders: A six-month, prospective study. Cranio 2021; 39:151-56.
• Referans7. Guarda-Nardini L, Ferronato G, Manfredini D. Two-needle vs. single-needle technique for TMJ arthrocentesis plus hyaluronic acid injections: a comparative trial over a six-month follow up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012; 41: 506-13.
• Referans8. Alpaslan GH, Alpaslan C. Efficacy of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis with and without injection of sodium hyaluronate in treatment of internal derangements. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59: 613-18.
• Referans9. Şentürk MF, Tüzüner-Öncül AM, Cambazoğlu M. Prospective short term comparison of outcomes after single or double puncture arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2016; 54: 26-9.
• Referans10. Tatli U, Benlidayi ME, Ekren O, Salimov F. Comparison of the effectiveness of three different treatment methods for temporomandibular joint disc displacement without reduction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 603-9.
• Referans11. Alpaslan C, Dolwick MF, Heft MW. Five-year retrospective evaluation of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003; 32: 263-67.
• Referans12. Grossmann E, Poluha RL, Leite JPB. Temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: a technique proposal. Case report. BrJP. São Paulo 2019; 2: 293-5.
• Referans13. Tozoglu S, Al-Belasy FA, Dolwick MF. A review of techniques of lysis and lavage of the TMJ. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 49: 302-9.
• Referans14. Alkan A, Kilic E. A new approach to arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 38:85-6.
• Referans15. Alkan A, Etöz OA. A new anatomical landmark to simplify temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 48: 310-11.
• Referans16. Rahal A, Poirier J, Ahmarani C. Single-puncture arthrocentesis- -introducing a new technique and a novel device. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009; 67: 1771-3.
• Referans17. Guarda-Nardini L, Manfredini D, Ferronato G. Arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: a proposal for a single-needle technique. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106: 483-8.
• Referans18. Şentürk MF, Cambazoğlu M. A new classification for temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44: 417-18.
• Referans19. Nagori SA, Bansal A, Jose A, Roychoudhury A. Comparison of outcomes with the single-puncture and double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil 2021; 48: 1056-65.
• Referans20. Grossmann E, Guilherme Vargas Pasqual P, Poluha RL, Iwaki LCV, Iwaki Filho L, Setogutti ÊT. Single-needle arthrocentesis with upper compartment distension versus conventional twoneedle arthrocentesis: randomized clinical trial. Pain Res Manag 2017; 2017: 2435263.
• Referans21. Nagori SA, Roy Chowdhury SK, Thukral H, Jose A, Roychoudhury A. Single puncture versus standard double needle arthrocentesis for the management of temporomandibular joint disorders: A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2018; 45: 810-8.
• Referans22. Şentürk MF, Yazıcı T, Fındık Y, Baykul T. Intraoperative comparison of single- and double-puncture techniques in temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 47: 1060-4.
• Referans23. Monteiro JLGC, de Arruda JAA, Silva EDOE, Vasconcelos BCDE. Is single-puncture TMJ arthrocentesis superior to the double-puncture technique for the ımprovement of outcomes in patients with TMDs? J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2020; 78: 1319.e1- e15.
• Referans24. Nagori SA, Jose A, Roychoudhury A. Comparison of intraoperative outcomes with single and double puncture techniques of arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020; 58: 928-32.
• Referans25. Sindel A, Uzuner F, Sindel M, Tozoglu S. Comparison of the efficiency of irrigation of single and double-needle techniques of temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis: A cadaver study. Cranio. 2017; 35: 405-9.
• Referans26. Gouveia MV, Barbalho JC, Pereira Júnior ED, Nascimento MM, Vasconcelos BC. Effectiveness and satisfaction evaluation of patients submitted to TMJ arthrocenthesis: a case series. Braz Oral Res. 2015; 29:50.
• Referans27. Rodrigues ALP, Cardoso HJ, Ângelo DF. Patient experience and satisfaction with different temporomandibular joint treatments: A retrospective study. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2023; 51: 44-51.