Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England logoLink to Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
. 1999 Mar;81(2):119–123.

Impact of third molar removal on demands for postoperative care and job disruption: does anaesthetic choice make a difference?

D J Edwards 1, J Horton 1, J P Shepherd 1, M R Brickley 1
PMCID: PMC2503222  PMID: 10364971

Abstract

A prospective cohort study was undertaken to investigate the influences of anaesthetic modality and surgical difficulty on social reintegration and demands on health services after third molar removal. The study was undertaken at the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, Cardiff Dental Hospital. Of 444 patients, 266 (60%) had their third molars removed. The main outcome measures included anaesthetic modality, surgical difficulty (WHARFE scores), utilisation of health services, effects on work, school and home life. In all, 101 (40%) patients were treated under local anaesthesia (LA) +/- intravenous (i.v.) sedation and 165 (60%) under general anaesthesia (GA); 81 (49%) as inpatients and 84 (51%) as day cases. Of these patients, 38 (14%) returned to the hospital and 74 (28%) utilised primary care services postoperatively in addition to a standard review appointment. Patients treated under GA made more demands on primary care services (chi 2 = 6.41, df = 2, P < 0.05) and took more time away from work (P < 0.05). Patients underestimated the time they needed to recover. There was similar disruption to job, college and home life. There were no links between disruption and particular anaesthetic modalities and surgical difficulty. Surgery under GA was linked to increased postoperative demands on primary care, but not secondary care, and to longer job disruption. This could not fully be attributed to surgical difficulty.

Full text

PDF
119

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Berge T. I., Bøe O. E. Predictor evaluation of postoperative morbidity after surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Acta Odontol Scand. 1994 Jun;52(3):162–169. doi: 10.3109/00016359409027591. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Berge T. I., Gilhuus-Moe O. T. Per- and post-operative variables of mandibular third-molar surgery by four general practitioners and one oral surgeon. Acta Odontol Scand. 1993 Dec;51(6):389–397. doi: 10.3109/00016359309040590. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berge T. I. Inability to work after surgical removal of mandibular third molars. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997 Jan;55(1):64–69. doi: 10.3109/00016359709091944. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Chye E. P., Young I. G., Osborne G. A., Rudkin G. E. Outcomes after same-day oral surgery: a review of 1,180 cases at a major teaching hospital. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1993 Aug;51(8):846–849. doi: 10.1016/s0278-2391(10)80100-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Edwards D. J., Brickley M. R., Horton J., Edwards M. J., Shepherd J. P. Choice of anaesthetic and healthcare facility for third molar surgery. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998 Oct;36(5):333–340. doi: 10.1016/s0266-4356(98)90643-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Goodwin A. P., Ogg T. W. Preoperative preparation for day surgery. Br J Hosp Med. 1992 Feb 5;47(3):197–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Haljamäe H. Anesthetic risk factors. Acta Chir Scand Suppl. 1989;550:11–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Happonen R. P., Bäckström A. C., Ylipaavalniemi P. Prophylactic use of phenoxymethylpenicillin and tinidazole in mandibular third molar surgery, a comparative placebo controlled clinical trial. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990 Feb;28(1):12–15. doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(90)90003-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Henrikson P. A., Thilander H., Wåhlander L. A. Voltaren as an analgesic after surgical removal of a lower wisdom tooth. Int J Oral Surg. 1985 Aug;14(4):333–338. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9785(85)80022-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kostopoulou O., Brickley M. R., Shepherd J. P., Knutsson K., Rohlin M. Agreement between practitioners concerning removal of asymptomatic third molars. Community Dent Health. 1997 Sep;14(3):129–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Lopes V., Mumenya R., Feinmann C., Harris M. Third molar surgery: an audit of the indications for surgery, post-operative complaints and patient satisfaction. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1995 Feb;33(1):33–35. doi: 10.1016/0266-4356(95)90083-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Mercier P., Precious D. Risks and benefits of removal of impacted third molars. A critical review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1992 Feb;21(1):17–27. doi: 10.1016/s0901-5027(05)80447-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Meyerowitz C., Jensen O. E., Espeland M. A., Levy D. Extraction of the third molar and patient satisfaction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1988 Apr;65(4):396–400. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(88)90350-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Pratt C. A., Hekmat M., Pratt S. D., Zaki G. A., Barnard J. D. Controversies in third molar surgery--the national view on review strategies. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997 Oct;35(5):319–322. doi: 10.1016/s0266-4356(97)90403-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Preshaw P. M., Fisher S. E. Routine review of patients after extraction of third molars: is it justified? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1997 Dec;35(6):393–395. doi: 10.1016/s0266-4356(97)90713-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Seheult R. O., Cotter S. L., Mashni M. General anesthesia: the final option. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1993 Mar;21(3):26–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Sindet-Pedersen S., Petersen J. K., Gøtzsche P. C., Christensen H. A double-blind, randomized study of naproxen and acetylsalicylic acid after surgical removal of impacted lower third molars. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1986 Aug;15(4):389–394. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9785(86)80026-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Wood G. D., Corcoran J. P. Oral surgery specialisation in general practice. Br Dent J. 1988 May 21;164(10):331–333. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Worrall S. F. Are postoperative review appointments necessary following uncomplicated minor oral surgery? Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996 Dec;34(6):495–499. doi: 10.1016/s0266-4356(96)90243-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Worrall S. F., Riden K., Haskell R., Corrigan A. M. UK National Third Molar project: the initial report. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1998 Feb;36(1):14–18. doi: 10.1016/s0266-4356(98)90740-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Wright G., Goldberg M., Mark H., Petrillo M. K., Wiesel B. Utilization review to increase ambulatory-based surgery. Application for surgical tooth extraction. QRB Qual Rev Bull. 1983 Apr;9(4):100–106. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. van Gool A. V., Ten Bosch J. J., Boering G. Clinical consequences of complaints and complications after removal of the mandibular third molar. Int J Oral Surg. 1977 Feb;6(1):29–37. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9785(77)80069-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England are provided here courtesy of The Royal College of Surgeons of England

RESOURCES