Why the study?
Ageing, medical compromission, and drug therapies reduce the ability to cope with stress, warranting evaluation of the incidence of medical emergencies and post-surgical complications during ambulatory oral surgery in this cohort.
Ambulatory oral surgery procedures appear safe in medically compromised elderly patients when a specific stress reduction protocol is followed, with no medical emergencies and a low rate of local complications.
Supports protocol-based ambulatory oral surgery safety in elderly patients; leaves open whether antihypertensives increase local complication risk.
Background: Ageing, medical compromission and drug therapies are the main factors that can reduce the ability to cope with stress. The present study aimed to determine the incidence of medical emergencies and post-surgical complications in medically compromised elderly patients treated surgically in an ambulatory setting. Materials and methods: A sample of 199 patients surgically treated with tooth extractions and other dental surgeries was retrospectively analyzed. All patient-related and surgery-related variables were considered as predictive variables. Systemic complications ( e.g. , Digita qui il testo, diabetic), as well as local complications ( e.g. , post-operative bleeding, dehiscence), were evaluated as study outcomes. A univariate analysis was performed to identify the association between intra- and post-operative complications and all the study variables. Results: No medical emergencies and intraoperative complications occurred. The incidence of loco-regional post-operative complications was approximately 5.5% ( n = 11), and most of which occurred after flap tooth extractions. A statistically significant association was observed between loco-regional complications and anti-hypertensive drug therapy ( p =0.006). Conclusions: Ambulatory oral surgery procedures appear to be safe in medically compromised elderly patients, provided that a specific protocol is always followed, for their management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pippi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: