Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Postoperative delirium in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a scoping review

Head & Face Medicine volume 20, Article number: 39 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Postoperative delirium (POD) in the oral and maxillofacial settings has gained more attention in recent decades. Due to advances in medical technology, treatment possibilities have expanded treatment for elderly and frail patients. This scoping review explores the correlation between POD and oral and maxillofacial surgery, summarizing screening and management protocols and identifying risk factors in this surgical field.

Methods

This review follows the Scoping Review extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR). A comprehensive literature search was performed using multiple databases, focusing on articles published from 2002 to 2023 that discuss delirium in oral and maxillofacial surgery settings. The review was registered beforehand in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r2ebc).

Results

From the initial 644 articles, 68 met the inclusion criteria. These studies highlighted the significant heterogeneity in POD diagnosis methods. The review identifies multiple risk factors across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases that influence the occurrence of POD. Significant and independent risk factors in multiple regression analysis were highlighted, creating a clinical prediction list for the occurrence of POD.

Conclusion

It is crucial to preoperatively identify patients at risk for POD and actively modify these risks throughout the patient's hospital stay. Implementing nonpharmacological preventive measures for at-risk patients is recommended to decrease the incidence of POD. Future research should focus on creating standardized specialty-specific protocols incorporating validated assessment tools and addressing the full spectrum of risk factors associated with POD.

Peer Review reports

Background

The continuous advancement in medicine enables us to perform complex procedures on advanced-age patients. These patients are often frail and vulnerable due to multimorbidity, disease-related deconditioning, polypharmacy, and cognitive, functional, and social limitations. Preoperative consideration of these multiple factors is essential for care providers to achieve optimal results.

A common complication that develops in this population is postoperative delirium (POD). POD is considered a serious neuropsychiatric disorder that is associated with other underlying medical, cognitive, and functional impairments. However, it’s potentially preventable, reliably detectable, and can be effectively managed [1].

Several studies suggest that the incidence of POD in elective oral and maxillofacial surgery varies tremendously due to high heterogeneity in delirium diagnosis methods. An incidence rate between 3–37% has been reported [2,3,4]. That results in many short- and long-term adverse events and can impact a patient's life and have further financial consequences on the whole health system [5]. Regarding the severe consequences of POD, it seems plausible to identify patients at risk preoperatively, increase efforts for prevention and early detection.

POD is easier to prevent than to treat. Ludolph et al. reported that non-pharmacological multicomponent interventions could prevent almost a third of delirium cases in hospitalized patients [6]. It has been reported that 66% of patients with delirium are misdiagnosed [7]. Failure to diagnose delirium jeopardizes patients’ safety and impairs the treatment quality. Negative consequences following delirium, including emotional, functional, and cognitive distress, are documented widely in the literature [8]. A retrospective cohort study of more than 12,000 patients showed a 31% increased risk of dementia development following delirium. The risk of death five years postdiagnosis was even higher in patients over 65 years [9]. Delirium is also associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Grover et al. showed a 30% risk of developing PTSD following recovery from delirium. The severity of PTSD was also associated with delirium severity [10]. Common challenges in delirium diagnostics are the lack of awareness of the medical team, the variation of delirium presentation, its fluctuating nature, and hindered assessment in patients suffering from cognitive impairment. Clinicians tend not to follow a structured assessment for delirium or a score-based assessment but rather rely on general observational diagnosis. This practice could lead to an increased number of misdiagnosed patients [11,12,13].

Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) has a unique nature that carries multiple challenges, separating it from other surgical specialties. Patients' communication in the initial postoperative period may be limited. Therefore, relying on commonly used Delirium assessment tools might not always be feasible. Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) [14], Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (NuDESC) [15], and the (Alertness, Abbreviated Mental Test 4, Attention, Acute Chance or Fluctuating course) Test (4AT) [16] contain many items that depend on verbal communication. This might be impeded by intraoral and facial swelling, acute oral pain, limited mouth movement, and opening ability.

Additionally, tracheostomy might also complicate communication and detection of patients' incoherent and disorganized thinking in the initial period before speaking traning. Delirium symptoms like agitation may lead to patient refusal to any treatment, which further hinders delirium diagnosis [17]. Therefore, focusing solely on the postoperative phase in detecting and managing POD is not optimal clinical practice.

While several researchers have explored risk factors linked to POD following head and neck surgeries [18,19,20,21], there remains a notable gap in identifying the most suitable diagnostic methodology and optimal prehabilitation process.

This scoping review aims to explore the literature regarding the correlation between postoperative delirium and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. It aims to report the incidence of delirium among patients undergoing such procedures and the possibility of elevated risk in head and neck tumor patients. Furthermore, it identifies the assessment tools and methodologies frequently utilized for delirium detection in this surgical field, alongside pre- and postoperative management protocols. Additionally, it summarizes the OMFS-related risk factors reported in the literature.

Methods

Registration

This scoping review is conducted to systematically examine the available literature concerning postoperative delirium in the context of oral and maxillofacial surgery settings. The data is reported according to the Scoping Review extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement (PRISMA-ScR) [22]. The protocol of this scoping review was prospectively registered on 22nd June 2023 in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r2ebc).

Study design

Review questions

To identify important aspects related to delirium in patients after oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures, we developed research questions that clearly define the population, concept, and context (PCC) of this scoping review, following the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) [22] (Table 1).

Table 1 PCC framework
Full size table

The goals of this review lie in analyzing the incidence of delirium in oral and maxillofacial surgery as well as short- and long-term outcomes of the patients. Moreover, which screening protocols are used, how risk factors are identified, and whether targeted preventive measurements may be applied to avoid POD.

Search strategy

Two independent authors performed a comprehensive search of the following databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Livivo, ScienceDirect, and Scopus, where the search strategy was tailored to each database. The search strategy included predefined keywords and subject headings related to delirium and OMFS. The detailed search strategy can be found in the supplemental files (Additional Table 5).

As main keywords, we used "Delirium", "Maxillofacial surgery" and "Head and neck surgery ". Furthermore, additional search terms were related to Delirium in oral and maxillofacial surgery: "Elderly", "geriatric", "cognitive impairment", "Alcohol Withdrawal Delirium", "Emergence delirium", "agitation".

All publications were analyzed by title and abstract to exclude irrelevant entries. Any discrepancy was resolved through discussion with a third researcher, and at the end of the selection process, full agreement was reached on the articles to be included. Full-text articles meeting the eligibility criteria were retrieved for further analysis. The database search included articles up until the 04.08.2023 Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Articles were considered eligible if all inclusion criteria were met. Table 2 lists the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Table 2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

The primary search results from the different databases were imported into Rayyan, a web-based program designed for study selection of systematic review and removal of duplication [23]. Title and abstract screening were done. Then, articles eligible for full-text screening were retrieved. In articles with mixed collection, head and neck surgery patients' results were extracted.

Data extraction and charting

Extraction of information from the selected articles is known in scoping review as Data Charting. The authors reviewed the articles systematically and collected the information independently. The collected information was categorized into Bibliometric data, which contained the author’s name, publication year, and country(ies). Then, the study details include study design, population, setting, mean age, presence of cognitive impairment or psychological disorders, and surgical intervention. Additionally, details related to delirium were collected: Age of patients with delirium, delirium incidence, delirium assessment tool or diagnostic method, assessment frequency, management protocol, and short and long-term consequences related to delirium were extracted from all eligible studies. The data charting was carried out using Microsoft Excel. The article's details are summarized in a supplemental table (see Additional Table 1).

In articles examining risk factors for postoperative delirium, an additional charting process was conducted to distinguish between significant and non-significant risk factors in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. Additionally, independent risk factors were identified (see Additional Tables 2–4).

Since this is a scoping review, the quality of the included articles was not assessed. Narrative description and statistical analysis present a comprehensive overview of the findings. This is done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

Results

The literature search uncovered 644 relevant articles, with the process of identification, screening, and selection detailed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram (Fig. 1). At the title and abstract level, 108 citation records were deemed eligible for full-text review. Consequently, 68 studies met the eligibility criteria for final inclusion.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA chart for study selection

Full size image

Study characteristics

The characteristics of the included studies are individually summarized in Additional Table 1. Originating from diverse regions, 23.5% (n = 16) of the studies were from Japan [4, 19, 20, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], 19.1% (n = 13) from the USA [5, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48], 14.7% (n = 10) from Germany and China [2, 21, 49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65], each of South Korea and the United Kingdom had (n = 3) studies 4.4% [66,67,68,69,70,71], and (n = 2) 2.9% from countries, including Australia [3, 72], Canada [73, 74], Taiwan [75, 76], and the Netherlands [77, 78]. One study included Brazil [79], India [80], Ireland [81], Israel [82], and Switzerland [83].

The included studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of designs and protocols followed. Retrospective cohorts and case–control studies design accounted for (n = 48) 70.6% [2,3,4,5, 19,20,21, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39, 41,42,43,44,45, 49, 51,52,53, 55, 59,60,61,62,63, 66, 68, 70,71,72, 74,75,76,77, 81,82,83]. The studies with a primary focus on POD were mostly derived from retrospective data. Fifteen studies (22.1%) had either a prospective cohort design or a prospective cohort component designed as randomized or case–control studies [24, 40, 46,47,48, 50, 54, 57, 58, 64, 65, 67, 73, 78, 84]. Examining comparative aspects of interventions, risk factors, or other exposures. Two studies had mixed prospective and retrospective components [48, 69]. Additionally, (n = 3) 4.4% of case reports and series were included, where one reported delirium in patients operated in Local anesthesia and the other reported a young patient developing delirium after Orthognathic surgery [32, 79, 80].

Almost all the studies included in this scoping review took place in inpatient units and ICU settings. One study included POD assessments of patients in Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) settings [2]. Also, one case report presented a patient developing delirium post-hospital discharge [79].

POD-related information

Of the 68 primary studies in this scoping review, 14,662 subjects were examined, with 1417 (9.66%) diagnosed with postoperative Delirium. As most of the studies failed to report the type of POD, the question of the most occurring type in the OMFS field remained unanswered. The mean age of the patients who participated in the reviewed studies is 63.1 ± 10.6 years. The age of patients diagnosed with postoperative delirium was either unclear or unreported in n = 42 (61.8%) studies. The mean age reported of patients with delirium was 64.7 ± 11.3.

For comparison of the incidence of delirium in relation to the study design, 15 prospective and 48 retrospective studies were analyzed. The study population was 149 ± 180 patients in the prospective design and 129 ± 314 patients in the retrospective design. The incidence of delirium was 10.8 ± 11.3% and 13.4 ± 11.9% respectively. The comparison of the two groups showed no significant difference with U = 298; p = 0.325; r = 0.172. For the Prospective studies, the 25. – 75. Percentile was 4.21–21.8%; IQR 17.6%, while for the retrospective studies, it was 8.29–22.9%; IQR 14.7% (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Comparison of POD incidence in prospective and retrospective studies

Full size image

Examining the type of surgical interventions, 85.3% (n = 58) of the studies focused on individuals with head and neck cancer resection and reconstruction surgeries. In some articles (n = 6) 8.8% a mix of different oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures were presented [2, 33, 50, 56, 62, 83]. Two articles presented patients with Orthognathic surgery [37, 79] and one with condylar Fracture [80]. Only one article investigated cases of TMJ-related surgeries done under local anesthesia [32].

Baseline cognitive status was either unclear or unreported in (n = 50) 73.5% of the included studies. Similarly, preexisting psychiatric disorder was unreported in (n = 48) 70.6% of studies. Moreover, (n = 6) 8.8% of studies excluded patients with dementia, impaired cognitive status, or psychological disorders [21, 24, 25, 50, 56, 84].

The diagnostic criteria and/or validated assessment tools used to make the diagnosis of delirium varied. Numerous studies failed to report the assessment methods used to diagnose POD 50% (n = 34), particularly when it was not the primary focus of the research. In our analysis, we identified 9 distinct diagnostic methods used across these studies. Notably, in certain studies (n = 5), 7.4% solely relied on medical record notes with no reference to a diagnostic method or coding system [33, 35, 45, 73, 76].

The predominant tool observed across multiple studies was the The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 3rd, 4th, 5th Edition) used in (n = 13) (19.1%) studies [4, 5, 19,20,21, 25, 28, 30, 34, 55, 66, 68, 71]. Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) was applied in 5 (7.4%) studies [3, 21, 58, 65, 81]. CAM was also assessed in normal clinical setting in 2 studies [64, 84], and the 3D-CAM variation was applied in one study [50]. Other assessment methods used were Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) [53, 65, 83], Nu-DESC [2, 52], Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) [24, 59, 83], Delirium Observation Scale (DOS) [83], and clinically manifest delirium based on the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) [2, 36, 55, 79]. It is noteworthy that additional psychiatric consultation was integrated in 6 (8.8%) studies [28, 30, 55, 66, 68, 71] and a Geriatricians consultation in one study [46].

Most of the studies failed to report their screening protocols, including the screening frequency and delirium resolution time (n = 58) 85.3%. A substantial degree of heterogeneity was evident among those studies that did outline a screening protocol. Screening protocols varied widely, ranging from single assessments in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) [2], to assessments every 4 h [24], every 8-h shift [59, 83], twice daily [52, 64, 65], or once daily [50, 58, 84]. Assessment duration ranged from 1 to 5 days. These discrepancies don’t adhere to the recommendations of the European Society of Anaesthesiology guidelines for postoperative delirium, which recommend initiating screening in the PACU and continuing throughout each shift until postoperative day 5, utilizing a validated scoring tool [85]. This inconsistency reveals a considerable misalignment between research practices and established clinical guidelines and directly affects the reported delirium incidence rates. This impacts the early detection and the implementation of timely management strategies in clinical settings.

In the studies reviewed, 76.5% (n = 52) included no specific protocols for managing postoperative delirium. Nonpharmacological approaches were reported in (n = 5) 7.4% studies [59, 65, 68, 79, 83], while others relied on a combined approach or purely pharmacological management strategies (n = 15) 22.1% [19,20,21, 25, 30, 34, 48, 50, 58, 68, 76, 79, 80, 83]. Administered medications included antipsychotics (haloperidol, risperidone, quetiapine, pipamperone), antidepressants ( escitalopram, mirtazapine), anxiolytics, and sedatives (diazepam, dexmedetomidine, clonidine) and pain medication as PCA-fentanyl as part of the treatment in different doses and frequencies. Assessing the effectiveness of these management protocols is challenging due to the considerable heterogeneity of delirium diagnostic tools and timing. Recent guidelines advocate for initially employing nonpharmacological strategies as the primary management method. Should pharmacological treatments be necessary, they must be administered by minimizing dosage and duration [86, 87]. Clear preventive measures protocols were not reported.

Some studies have documented adverse outcomes and long-term consequences linked to POD. Patients experiencing post-operative delirium showed a significantly higher rate of postoperative complications [21]. These include increased incidences of postoperative wound complications and pulmonary complications [70], extended durations of hospitalization [55, 73], and an increased necessity of discharge to post-care facilities [38]. Additionally, prolonged mechanical ventilation and an elevated risk of requiring unplanned secondary tracheotomy [49]. Further findings indicate delayed mobilization post-surgery [28, 74] and a decreased overall survival rates [60].

POD risk factors

In this scoping review, 28 included studies examined various hypothesized risk factors in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases (Additional Tables 2–4). The factors that showed a statistically significant relation to delirium in at least one of the studies were mentioned. Factors without information regarding their significance were either not assessed, or no specific association was mentioned in the research findings.

The Significant association was marked as (√), Factors with a significant association that were identified as Independent factors in multiple regression analysis were marked as (√*), and nonsignificant factors were marked as (x).

Preoperative risk factors

Patient’s characteristics

The most distinct risk factor is increased age, of the 23 studies investigated age as risk factor 16 studies reported a significant association (n = 16/23) 69,6% [3, 5, 19, 20, 30, 31, 33, 34, 47, 55, 60, 68, 70, 71, 75, 88], and eight of them reported it as an independent risk factor. Age is accompanied by increased comorbidity and decreased regenerative capability and has often been described as a risk factor in other surgical specialties [55].

The data on the male gender in regard to POD remains inconclusive. In four studies (n = 4/20) 20% reported it as a significant risk factor [5, 30, 34, 52], while sixteen failed to find a significant association.

Concerning increased BMI, no study found a significant association with POD. On the other hand, two studies found a significant association between history of malnutrition and POD [4, 5], and one described a low skeletal muscle index as an independent risk factor for hypoactive delirium [4].

Laboratory data

Contradictory, both high [4], and low [20, 52, 68] preoperative albumin have been found as significant risk factors (n = 4/8) 50% [4, 20, 52, 68]. Low albumin levels indicate poor nutrition or metabolic disturbances. Researchers suggest that high albumin levels do not lead to POD per se. High Albumin levels might allude to dehydration. Also, a steep perioperative drop in Albumin levels indicates malnutrition or inflammation, which could promote POD. Maintaining sufficient hydration and albumin levels could be beneficial [4]. Counterintuitively, a preoperative high hemoglobin was found as a significant risk factor by two studies (n = 2/8) 25% [21, 70]. This could also indicate dehydration, which leads to increased vulnerability for POD [70]. Low TSH was also found to be a significant risk factor [55].

Pre-existing medical condition

Pre-existing medical conditions are routinely assessed and deliver ample information about the patient’s vulnerability. Firstly, an American Society of Anesthesiologists score (ASA) of III/IV was displayed as both significant (n = 5) [3, 19, 47, 60, 68] and independent (n = 2) [60, 68] risk factor (n = 5/9) 55,5%, indicating severe health condition. Furthermore, recent hospitalization [30] and a history of delirium [2] are recognized as significant risk factors.

A special focus lies on neurological disorders. Cognitive impairment and dementia were found as independent risk factors (n = 4/7) 57,1% [2, 33, 47, 71], indicating reduced cognitive reserves.

In addition, psychiatric disorders (n = 2/9) 22,2% [3, 68] and especially alcohol abuse (n = 5/18) 27,8% [5, 21, 42, 47, 70] proved to be significant risk factors. Alcoholism is a peculiarity of OMFS patients, as alcohol and tobacco are one of the main risk factors for head and neck cancer. Researchers used alcohol-drinking questions in their ‘clinical prediction rule’ for POD [47]. Vice versa, preoperative abstinence showed a protective effect [5]. Identifying alcohol misuse and establishing perioperative abstinence constitutes a beneficial target.

Less apparent, smoking was also a significant risk factor in three studies (n = 3/15) 20% [4, 5, 70]. Negative effects on the cardiovascular system are widely reported. This might impede the perfusion of the brain and reduce neuro-cognitive reserves. Thereby, the vulnerability for POD could be increased.

Other conditions significantly associated with POD include diabetes mellitus (n = 4/9) 44,4% [4, 5, 30, 55], hypertension (n = 2/6) 33,3% [19, 84], cardiovascular disease (n = 2/8) 25% [5, 70], renal dysfunction (n = 2/5) 40% [5, 19], COPD (n = 2/3) 66,6% [30, 70], tumor stage IV (n = 2/8) 25% [35, 89], and sleep disorders (n = 1/2) 50% [68]. No association was found between a history of chemo-/ radiotherapy and POD.

Medication

A significant association was found between the use of insulin/antidiabetics [55], psychotropic medication [4], and irregular antihypertensive medication use [84]. The associations might not be causal but due to underlying diseases. Nonetheless, a preoperative check and adjustment should be considered, focusing on psychotropic and antihypertensive medication.

Intraoperative precipitating factors

The most important intraoperative risk factors are duration of surgery (n = 11/23) 47,8% [19, 20, 28, 35, 45,46,47, 52, 70, 88, 89] and duration of anesthesia (n = 2/4) 50% [28, 33], as they go along with increased stress, tissue damage and blood loss. Accordingly, intraoperative blood loss (n = 3/7) 42,9% [28, 46, 52], low hemoglobin (n = 1/2) 50% [20], elevated blood lactate [21], blood transfusion (n = 5/9) 55,6% [19, 20, 35, 70, 89], and crystalloid infusion (n = 3/8) 37,5% [35, 52, 89] were identified as significant risk factors, indicating a lack of oxygenation. Moreover, surgical reconstruction (n = 6/13) 46,1% [21, 28, 34, 35, 45, 55] and tracheotomy (n = 1/11) 9,1% [68] are described as significant risk factors. This might allude to the severity of the surgery. On the other hand, neck dissection was not found to be a significant risk factor. Therefore, surgery should be kept as short and non-invasive as possible. Blood loss should be kept to a minimum. Hemoglobin and blood pressure should be stabilized if possible.

Postoperative risk factors

Certain precipitating postoperative factors for patients at risk result from a severe clinical course, which itself is a risk factor for POD. These are ICU duration (n = 7/10) 70% [2, 20, 21, 30, 53, 55, 68], hospitalization duration (n = 5/10) 50% [20, 21, 55, 70, 71], ventilation duration (n = 2/4) 50% [30, 52], time to mobilization (n = 2/5) 40% [28, 71], impaired wound healing (n = 1/5) 20% [70], transplant revision (n = 1/5) 20% [21] and pulmonary complications (n = 1/2) 50% [70]. The potential to optimize these risk factors is limited. However, early mobilization and discharge from the ICU should be pursued if feasible.

Postoperative laboratory risk factors correlate with intraoperative risk factors: Again, low hemoglobin (n = 4/8) 50% [20, 28, 30, 34], low hematocrit (n = 2/5) 40% [28, 34], low red blood cell count [28, 34], and increased blood lactate (n = 1/2) 50% [21] all indicate a lack of oxygenation. Maintaining a stable hemoglobin level perioperatively, and therefore ensuring brain oxygenation, seems beneficial for POD prevention. Further risk factors are increased IL-6 [88], indicating inflammation, and increased potassium levels (n = 1/6) 16,7% [30], indicating cellular damage or metabolic disturbances.

The findings on postoperative medication are contradictory. The application of major tranquilizers [30] and psychotropics [55] were found to be risk factors for POD. Conversely, a lack of minor tranquilizers [35] was shown to be an independent risk factor. The causality remains unclear as tranquilizers/ psychotropics may have been applied to treat POD. It is suggested that minor tranquilizers stabilize the sleep–wake cycle and potentially prevent POD [35, 90]. Accordingly, one study highlighted postoperative insomnia as an independent risk factor [4]. Findings from both pre-and postoperative periods indicate a correlation between medications having anticholinergic effects and POD. Thus, preoperative evaluation of a patient's anticholinergic cognitive burden using a straightforward score, like the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) score, could be beneficial [91].

Furthermore, one study found patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) via fentanyl superior to morphine [34]. In comparison, the application of morphine was significantly associated with POD. This effect may result from better pain control via fentanyl and less impact on the sleep–wake cycle [34].

Another risk factor was the application of a new medication postoperatively [55].

Additionally, in the OMFS setting, nutrition plays a crucial role. The patient’s ability of oral food intake is often compromised. An increased Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS) score [53] was found as an independent risk factor. Coherently, a perioperative drop in total protein (n = 1/2) 50% [34], low postoperative albumin (n = 1/3) 33,3% [70], and performing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy postoperatively [55] posed risk factors. These factors suggest nutritional deficiencies that might contribute to the emergence of POD. Ensuring sufficient nutrition throughout the perioperative period should be aimed for.

Discussion

In literature, the terminology related to delirium in the context of oral and maxillofacial research is often used interchangeably and inconsistently. Terms such as "delirium," "postoperative delirium," "acute cognitive impairment," "emergence delirium," and "delirium tremens" are sometimes used without clear clarification of the definition. This leads to confusion among readers and researchers. Sometimes, these terms are used with a broad, encompassing meaning, hinting at their association with postoperative delirium rather than representing distinct and narrow categories as the term implies. The lack of standardized language usage creates additional challenge in understanding and comparing findings across studies. This emphasizes the need for unified terminology and precise definitions to establish a mutual understanding of this complication [92].

Incidence variability

The incidence of delirium in oral and maxillofacial studies exhibits significant variability due to numerous factors, including the inhomogeneity in study designs, different data collection methods, participant selection criteria, and the classification of outcome measuring protocols.

Although we didn’t find a significant difference in the reported incidences between prospective and retrospective studies, methodological heterogeneity remains an issue across studies. Most studies followed a retrospective methodology that lacks clear and standardized assessment methods. This leads to inconsistencies in identifying delirium cases. Collecting the information only from the patient's medical records with no previous guidelines of how delirium is regularly assessed postoperatively can lead to an overestimation of delirium or a lack of documentation of hypoactive cases. This approach results in incomplete and fragmented datasets, as delirium is mentioned as a side note or incidental finding. The absence of scoring assessment systems or structured assessments can skew the results, accounting for misleading conclusions.

Another drawback of retrospective studies is the lack of comprehensive real-time assessments, which is crucial given delirium's transient and fluctuant nature.

Furthermore, delirium is often not the primary focus of these studies; instead, it is considered one of the many complications that may arise postoperatively. This also can lead to underreporting or insufficient attention to delirium cases during the research period. Additionally, using different assessment methods further complicates the presented data.

OMFS patients in the postoperative period

Communication with patients following oral and maxillofacial surgery presents a unique challenge, necessitating the development of a specialized methodology for assessing postoperative delirium in this patient population. This distinctiveness arises from several factors related to OMFS procedures, including patients’ intraoral and facial swelling, acute oral pain, facial flaps, speech impairment due to edema, and limited mouth opening. Not rarely are these factors combined with the presence of tracheostomy and nasogastric tube interventions. These factors collectively hinder the conventional approach to delirium assessment. They heavily rely on verbal communication to assess the patient's orientation, attention, disorganized thinking, and communicative competence.

Increasing preoperative patient awareness about delirium, its significance, and how it will be assessed postoperatively is crucial. Providing them with alternative response methods to the assessment questions, such as writing or utilizing visual aids, could facilitate delirium evaluation. This can encourage patients to participate in their assessment despite speech limitations or discomfort. These unique postoperative circumstances may necessitate developing a new assessment tool or modifying conventional assessment tools.

Another aspect concerning POD in OMFS patients is that POD and its complications can delay the initiation of necessary adjuvant chemoradiotherapy for head and neck carcinoma, where an early start of treatment is essential for successful cancer management [30].

Delirium underdiagnosed in OMFS

The underdiagnosis of delirium in oral and maxillofacial studies primarily originates from the absence of routine screening protocols. Delirium is often mentioned as a secondary finding, among many complications, rather than a primary research focus. The lack of active and systematic screening in these studies particularly leads to the underdiagnosis of the hypoactive form of delirium. Due to its nature, this is challenging to identify without proactive measures.

Another contributing factor to underdiagnosis is the lack of awareness among surgeons and the supporting medical teams regarding delirium screening and management methodologies [93]. The impact on a patient's physical and psychological well-being and the strain on family members is often overlooked [94]. The patient is usually perceived as ‘the sleepy, quiet patient’ or ‘the uneasy, restless patient’. To improve this part of clinical practice, proactive screening is needed by implementing routine screening protocols and utilizing validated assessment tools. Also, it needs to be recognized that delirium presents itself in diverse clinical forms, including hypoactive form.

The absence of a standardized diagnostic approach and diagnostic code poses a challenge. It results in the oversight of documented episodes of delirium in a patient's medical history. It is reported that a history of delirium increases the risk of its recurrence and can be a predictor of cognitive impairment and dementia [95]. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure the inclusion of such information in medical records using standardized coding systems like the ICD code.

Preoperative cognitive assessment

The absence of preoperative cognitive assessments in routine practice presents another challenge in diagnosing postoperative delirium. Without a baseline cognitive reference point, identifying deviations becomes notably difficult. Some included studies in this scoping review excluded patients with cognitive impairments to eliminate this predisposing factor. Therefore, establishing a comparative baseline through efficient, validated cognitive tests such as the clock drawing test, six-item screening test, and months backward test can provide preoperative insights into patients' cognitive function. In the DELPHIC study, superior baseline cognitive function was associated with a reduced risk of delirium (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.45–0.89), and when delirium occurred, it was generally less severe and of shorter duration [96]. By integrating simple, time-efficient assessments into preoperative protocols, healthcare practitioners can proactively identify at-risk patients, paving the way for more targeted interventions and improved postoperative outcomes.

Risk factors

As medical advances enable the treatment of increasingly complex cases in older or more frail patients, identifying their OMFS-specific risk factors becomes crucial for delirium prevention. Several validated tools, such as DRAS [97], DRAT [98], and DEAR [99], exist for assessing delirium risk. These are simple, time-efficient bedside tests that don’t require special training and combine the main general risk factors for POD. However, none of the published studies in this scoping review utilized these tools to evaluate at-risk patients. Patients who could be screened routinely to detect high-risk individuals before surgery. Subsequently, the necessity of surgery may be evaluated. Pre-, intra-, and post-operative risk factors could be optimized, and further preventative measures could be implemented. Our scoping review focused on identifying independent risk factors in multiple regression analysis for POD; we found numerous predictors across the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. The predictors in the preoperative period included increased age, male gender, higher ASA classification (III, IV), the presence of psychiatric disorders, cognitive impairments including dementia, alcohol abuse, smoking, hypertension, low skeletal muscle mass, albumin levels, and irregular use of hypertension medication. Intraoperatively, factors such as surgery duration, high fluid intake, surgical reconstruction using free fibular grafts, and low hemoglobin levels were identified as independent risk factors. Postoperatively, the demanding environment following reconstructive surgery with vascular anastomosis in the head and neck region can significantly stress patients, potentially triggering delirium. The predictors in the postoperative periods were elevated serum IL-6 levels, prolonged ventilation, delayed mobilization, extended hospital stay, insomnia, pulmonary complications, the necessity for transplant revision, and nutritional risk.

Conclusions

In conclusion, it's essential to identify patients at risk of POD preoperatively and adjust the risk factors whenever possible from admission to discharge. Implementing targeted nonpharmacological prophylactic strategies for those at high risk can help reduce POD and enhance prompt intervention. Future research should investigate adjustable risk factors, particularly for elective surgical procedures, and develop standardized, specialty-specific protocols that include validated assessment tools. Additionally, training programs for healthcare professionals and educational initiatives for families and caregivers are vital, alongside policies and guidelines, to ensure these practices are effectively integrated across healthcare settings. All of this will provide a deeper understanding of delirium in the OMFS setting, its common subtypes, prognoses, and therapeutic options, bridging existing knowledge and practice gaps.

Availability of data and materials

Data is provided within the manuscript or supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

4AT:

Alertness, Abbreviated Mental Test 4, Attention, Acute Chance or Fluctuating course

ACB:

Anticholinergic cognitive burden

ASA:

American Society of Anesthesiologists

BMI:

Body-mass-index

CAM:

Confusion Assessment Method

CAM-ICU:

Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit

COPD:

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

DELPHIC-study:

Delirium and Population Health Informatics Cohort study

DEAR:

Delirium Elderly At-Ris

DOS:

Delirium Observation Scale

DRAS:

Delirium Risk Assessment Score

DRAT:

Delirium Risk Assessment Tool

DSM:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

Hb:

Haemoglobin

ICD-10:

International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision

ICDSC:

Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist

ICU:

Intensive Care Unit

IL-6:

Interleukine 6

NA:

Not applicable

NR:

Not reported

NuDESC:

Nursing Delirium Screening Scale

OMFS:

Oral and maxillofacial surgery

PACU:

Post-Anesthesia Care Unit

PCA:

Patient-controlled Analgesia

PCC:

Population, Concept, and Context

POD:

Postoperative delirium

PRISMA-ScR:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews

PTSD:

Post-traumatic stress disorder

RASS:

Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale

TMJ:

Temporomandibular joint

TSH:

Thyroid Stimulating Hormone

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.

  2. Ortner F, Eberl M, Otto S, Wang B, Schauberger G, Hofmann-Kiefer K, et al. Patient-related and anesthesia-dependent determinants for postoperative delirium after oral and maxillofacial surgery. Results from a register-based case-control study. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;122:62–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Edwards DA, Medhavy A, Hoffman OG, Hoffman GR. Postoperative delirium is associated with prolonged head and neck resection and reconstruction surgery: an institutional study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021;79:249–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Makiguchi T, Yamaguchi T, Nakamura H, Ogawa M, Harimoto N, Shirabe K, et al. Impact of skeletal muscle mass on postoperative delirium in patients undergoing free flap repair after oral cancer resection. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2020;54:161–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Densky J, Esk er A, Kang S, Chan J, Tweel B, et al. Risk factors associated with postoperative delirium in patients undergoing head and neck free flap reconstruction. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;145:216–21.

  6. Ludolph P, Stoffers-Winterling J, Kunzler AM, Rösch R, Geschke K, Vahl CF, et al. Non-pharmacologic multicomponent interventions preventing delirium in hospitalized people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68:1864–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Geriatric Medicine Research Collaborative. Delirium is prevalent in older hospital inpatients and associated with adverse outcomes: results of a prospective multi-centre study on World Delirium Awareness Day. BMC Med. 2019;17:229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. MacLullich AMJ, Hosie A, Tieges Z, Davis DHJ. Three key areas in progressing delirium practice and knowledge: recognition and relief of distress, new directions in delirium epidemiology and developing better research assessments. Age Ageing. 2022;51:afac271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Leighton SP, Herron JW, Jackson E, Sheridan M, Deligianni F, Cavanagh J. Delirium and the risk of developing dementia: a cohort study of 12 949 patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2022;93:822–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Grover S, Sahoo S, Chakrabarti S, Avasthi A. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related symptoms following an experience of delirium. J Psychosom Res. 2019;123: 109725.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis D, MacLullich A. Understanding barriers to delirium care: a multicentre survey of knowledge and attitudes amongst UK junior doctors. Age Ageing. 2009;38:559–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Inouye SK. Nurses’ recognition of delirium and its symptoms: comparison of nurse and researcher ratings. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:2467.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carpenter CR, Hammouda N, Linton EA, Doering M, Ohuabunwa UK, Ko KJ, et al. Delirium prevention, detection, and treatment in emergency medicine settings: a Geriatric Emergency Care Applied Research (GEAR) network scoping review and consensus statement. Acad Emerg Med. 2021;28:19–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Inouye SK. Clarifying confusion: the confusion assessment method: a new method for detection of delirium. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:941.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaudreau J-D, Gagnon P, Harel F, Roy M-A. Impact on delirium detection of using a sensitive instrument integrated into clinical practice. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2005;27:194–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bellelli G, Morandi A, Davis DHJ, Mazzola P, Turco R, Gentile S, et al. Validation of the 4AT, a new instrument for rapid delirium screening: a study in 234 hospitalised older people. Age Ageing. 2014;43:496–502.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Williams ST, Dhesi JK, Partridge JSL. Distress in delirium: causes, assessment and management. Eur Geriatr Med. 2020;11:63–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhu Y, Wang G, Liu S, Zhou S, Lian Y, Zhang C, et al. Risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients undergoing major head and neck cancer surgery: a meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2017;47:505–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Booka E, Kamijo T, Matsumoto T, Takeuchi M, Kitani T, Nagaoka M, et al. Incidence and risk factors for postoperative delirium after major head and neck cancer surgery. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2016;44:890–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hasegawa T, Saito I, Takeda D, Iwata E, Yonezawa N, Kakei Y, et al. Risk factors associated with postoperative delirium after surgery for oral cancer. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2015;43:1094–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. M O, R S, B P, T S, F H, J B, et al. Identification of risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients following intraoral reconstruction with microvascular free flaps: a matched-pair analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2023.03.013.

  22. Aromataris E, Munn Z (Editors). JBI Reviewer's Manual. JBI, 2020. Available from https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIRM-19-01.

  23. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. H K, J S, T K, T O, D T, E H, et al. The perioperative frontal relative ratio of the alpha power of electroencephalography for predicting postoperative delirium after highly invasive surgery: a prospective observational study. Anesth Analg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006424.

  25. Fukuzawa S, Yamagata K, Takaoka S, Uchida F, Ishibashi-Kanno N, Yanagawa T, Bukawa H. Postoperative Deep Sedation after Microvascular Reconstructive Surgery for Oral Cancer Increases the Risk of Early Postoperative Pneumonia. Dent J (Basel). 2023;11(5):137. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11050137.

  26. Atsumu K, Takeshi K, Yu Y, Kensuke Y, Tsuyoshi S, Tetsu T, et al. Microvascular reconstruction for oral cancer among older adult patients: the impact of age on surgical outcomes. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2023.06.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Takaya A, Higashino T, Oshima A, Fukunaga Y, Ohba J, Suzuki A, et al. Clinical assessment of early mobilization after head and neck free flap reconstruction: A retrospective case–control study. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022;75:3997–4002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Takahashi N, Hiraki A, Kawahara K, Nagata M, Yoshida R, Matsuoka Y, et al. Postoperative delirium in patients undergoing tumor resection with reconstructive surgery for oral cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2021;14:60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Onoda S, Kinoshita M, Ariyoshi Y. Investigation of Free-Flap Transfer Reconstruction in Elderly Patients and Oral Intake Function. J Craniofac Surg. 2020;31:E679–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ishibashi-Kanno N, Takaoka S, Nagai H, Okubo-Sato M, Fukuzawa S, Uchida F, et al. Postoperative delirium after reconstructive surgery for oral tumor: a retrospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020;49:1143–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sugiura Y, Sarukawa S, Hayasaka J, Kamochi H, Noguchi T, Mori Y. Mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flaps in the elderly: a retrospective evaluation. Int J ORAL Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47:983–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Segami N. A modified approach for eminectomy for temporomandibular joint dislocation under local anaesthesia: report on a series of 50 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;47:1439–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kinugawa T, Morimoto Y, Hayashi M, Takagi D, Iida T. Risk factors for postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing non-major oral and maxillofacial surgery-a retrospective chart study. Biomed Res. 2018;29:10–4066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Shiiba M, Takei M, Nakatsuru M, Bukawa H, Yokoe H, Uzawa K, et al. Clinical observations of postoperative delirium after surgery for oral carcinoma. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:661–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yamagata K. Risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients undergoing head and neck cancer surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0901-5027(04)00099-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kunimatsu T, Misaki T, Hirose N, Tsuboi E, Takahashi I, Ohki H, et al. Postoperative mental disorder following prolonged oral surgery. J Oral Sci. 2004;46:71–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee CC, G, otra S, Lahey ET, Peacock ZS. Is intensive care unit monitoring necessary after maxillomandibular advancement for management of obstructive sleep apnea? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;80:456–64.

  38. Jones A, Joseph er, Campiti VJ, Alwani M, Novinger LJ, Bonetto A, et al. Skeletal muscle index’s impact on discharge disposition after head and neck cancer free flap reconstruction. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;165:59–68.

  39. Alwani MM, Jones AJ, Novinger LJ, Pittelkow E, Bonetto A, Sim MW, et al. Impact of sarcopenia on outcomes of autologous head and neck free tissue reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2020;36:369–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cervenka B, Olinde L, Gould E, Farwell DG, Moore M, Kaufman M, et al. Use of a non-ICU specialty ward for immediate post-operative management of head and neck free flaps; a randomized controlled trial. Oral Oncol. 2019;99: 104464.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Aslam-Pervez N, Caldroney SJ, Isaiah A, Lubek JE. A retrospective volume matched analysis of the submental artery island pedicled flap as compared to the forearm free flap: is it a good alternative choice for the reconstruction of defects of the oral cavity and oropharynx? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76:656–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kaka AS, Zhao S, Ozer E, Agrawal A, Kang S, Rocco J, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes following head and neck surgery among patients who contract to abstain from alcohol vs patients who abuse alcohol. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2017;143:1181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Panwar A, Smith R, Lydiatt D, Lindau R, Wieland A, Richards A, et al. Vascularized tissue transfer in head and neck surgery: Is intensive care unit–based management necessary? Laryngoscope. 2016;126:73–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Weyh AM, Lunday L, McClure S. Insurance status, an important predictor of oral cancer surgery outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73:2049–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang R, Lubek JE, Dyalram D, Liu X, Ord RA. Head and neck cancer surgery in an elderly patient population: a retrospective review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43:1413–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Shuman AG, Korc-Grodzicki B, Shklar V, Palmer F, Shah JP, Patel SG. A new care paradigm in geriatric head and neck surgical oncology. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:187–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Shah S. Alcohol-related predictors of delirium after major head and neck cancer surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2012;138:266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lansford CD, Guerriero CH, Kocan MJ, Turley R, Groves MW, Bahl V, et al. Improved outcomes in patients with head and neck cancer using a standardized care protocol for postoperative alcohol withdrawal. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2008;134:865–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Schuderer JG, Reider L, Wunschel M, Spanier G, Spoerl S, Gottsauner MJ, et al. Elective tracheotomy in patients receiving mandibular reconstructions: reduced postoperative ventilation time and lower incidence of hospital-acquired pneumonia. J Clin Med. 2023;12:883.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Liu T, Tuo J, Wei Q, Sun X, Zhao H, Zhao X, et al. Effect of perioperative dexmedetomidine infusion on postoperative delirium in elderly patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Gen Med. 2022;15:6105–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Ritschl LM, Niu M, Pippich K, Schuh P, Rommel N, Fichter AM, et al. Superficial temporal artery and vein as alternative recipient vessels for intraoral reconstruction with free flaps to avoid the cervical approach with the resulting need for double flap transfer in previously treated necks. Front Oncol. 2022;12:879086.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Obermeier KT, Kraus M, Smolka W, Henkel J, Saller T, Otto S, et al. Postoperative delirium in patients with oral cancer: is intraoperative fluid administration a neglected risk factor? Cancers. 2022;14:3176.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Taxis J, Spoerl S, Broszio A, Eichberger J, Grau E, Schuderer J, et al. Postoperative delirium after reconstructive surgery in the head and neck region. J Clin Med. 2022;11:6630.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhou D, Zhu X, Wang L, Yang X, Liu Y, Zhang X. Which anesthesia regimen is best to reduce pulmonary complications after head and neck surgery? Laryngoscope. 2021;131:E108-15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kolk A, Schwarzer C, Wolff K-D, Grill F, Weingart J. Factors Associated With Postoperative Delirium in Patients Undergoing Complex Head and Neck Flap Surgery. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;80:372-379.e5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang L, Zhang T, Huang L, Peng W. Comparison between dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation in patients with intubation after oral and maxillofacial surgery. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:7082597.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Yang Y, Wu H, Wei L, Li P, Cai Z, Shan X. Improvement of the patient early mobilization protocol after oral and maxillofacial free flap reconstruction surgery. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2020;48:43–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Yang X, Li Z, Gao C, Liu R. Effect of dexmedetomidine on preventing agitation and delirium after microvascular free flap surgery: a randomized, double-blind. Control Study J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;73:1065–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Meier J, Wunschel M, Angermann A, Ettl T, Metterlein T, Klingelhoeffer C, et al. Influence of early elective tracheostomy on the incidence of postoperative complications in patients undergoing head and neck surgery. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19:43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Zhang C, Xi MY, Zeng J, Li Y, Yu C. Prognostic Impact of Postoperative Complications on Overall Survival in 287 Patients With Oral Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Institution Study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;77:1471–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Goetz C, Burian N-M, Weitz J, Wolff K-D, Bissinger O. Temporary tracheotomy in microvascular reconstruction in maxillofacial surgery: Benefit or threat? J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2019;47:642–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Goloborodko E, Foldenauer AC, Ayoub N, Knobe M, Möhlhenrich SC, Kniha K, et al. Perioperative safety and complications in treatment of oral and maxillofacial surgery patients under general anesthesia with obstructive sleeping disorders. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2018;46:1609–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Chen XF, Chen YM, Gokavarapu S, Shen QC, Ji T. Free flap reconstruction for patients aged 85 years and over with head and neck cancer: clinical considerations for comprehensive care. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;55:793–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sun L, Jia P, Zhang J, Zhang X, Zhang Y, Jiang H, et al. Production of inflammatory cytokines, cortisol, and Aβ1–40 in elderly oral cancer patients with postoperative delirium. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016;12:2789–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Guo Y, Sun L, Li L, Jia P, Zhang J, Jiang H, et al. Impact of multicomponent, nonpharmacologic interventions on perioperative cortisol and melatonin levels and postoperative delirium in elderly oral cancer patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;62:112–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Wang SG, Goh EK, Lee BJ, Chon KM. Factors Associated with postoperative delirium after major head and neck surgery. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2004;113:48–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. McMahon JD, MacIver C, Smith M, Stathopoulos P, Wales C, McNulty R, et al. Postoperative complications after major head and neck surgery with free flap repair—prevalence, patterns, and determinants: a prospective cohort study. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013;51:689–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Choi NY, Kim EH, Baek CH, Sohn I, Yeon S, Chung MK. Development of a nomogram for predicting the probability of postoperative delirium in patients undergoing free flap reconstruction for head and neck cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol EJSO. 2017;43:683–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Tighe D, Thomas AJ, Hills A, Quadros R. Validating a risk stratification tool for audit of early outcome after operations for squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57:873–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Crawford JE, Zubair F, Baniulyte G, Wales CJ, Ansell M, Thomson E, et al. Postoperative delirium in patients with head and neck oral cancer in the West of Scotland*. Br J ORAL Maxillofac Surg. 2021;59:353–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Kim JH, Lee YS, Kim YH, Cho KJ, Jung YH, Choi S-H, et al. Early ambulation to prevent delirium after long-time head and neck cancer surgery. Front Surg. 2022;9: 880092.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Hoffman GR, Islam S, Eisenberg RL. Microvascular reconstruction of the mouth, jaws, and face: experience of an australian oral and maxillofacial surgery unit. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:e371–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Goldstein DP, Blasco M, de Almeida J, Su J, Xu W, Cohen M, et al. Cognitive impairment and delirium in older patients undergoing major head and neck surgery. Otolaryngol Neck Surg Off J Am Acad Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 2022;167:97–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Twomey R, Matthews TW, Nakoneshny S, Schrag C, Chandarana SP, Matthews J, et al. Impact of early mobilization on recovery after major head and neck surgery with free flap reconstruction. Cancers. 2021;13:2852.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Lofstr J, Chang KP, Lin JAJ, Loh CYY, Chou HY, et al. Third repeat microvascular reconstruction in head and neck cancer patients aged 65 years and older: a longitudinal and sequential analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:15740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Kuo YR, Jeng SF, Lin KM, Hou SJ, Su CY, Chien CY, et al. Microsurgical tissue transfers for head and neck reconstruction in patients with alcohol-induced mental disorder. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:371–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Ansari E, Chargi N, van Es RJJ, Dieleman FJ, Van Cann EM, de Bree R. Association of preoperative low skeletal muscle mass with postoperative complications after selective neck dissection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;51:1389–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Rosenberg AJWP, Van Cann EM, van der Bilt A, Koole R, van Es RJJ. A prospective study on prognostic factors for free-flap reconstructions of head and neck defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:666–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. da Costa FH, Herrera PA, Pereira-Stabile CL, Vitti Stabile GA. Postoperative Delirium Following Orthognathic Surgery in a Young Patient. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(2):284.e1–284.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2016.08.024.

  80. Pappachan B, Agrawal R. Post-operative delirium. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019;18:157–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Cj H, Cp B. Donor-site local anaesthetic infusion catheter as an opioid-sparing agent in free flap reconstruction of the head and neck: a valuable adjunct to an enhanced recovery protocol. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;60:196–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Sagiv D, Nadel S, Talmi YP, Yahalom R, Wolf M, Alon EE. Assessing the different oncologic disease distribution and postoperative complications of octogenarian and nonagenarian head and neck oncology patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;76:1355–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Schubert M, Schurch R, Boettger S, Nunez DG, Schwarz U, Bettex D, et al. A hospital-wide evaluation of delirium prevalence and outcomes in acute care patients - a cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:550.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Kong S, Wang J, Xu H, Wang K. Effect of hypertension and medication use regularity on postoperative delirium after maxillofacial tumors radical surgery. Oncotarget. 2021;12:1811–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Aldecoa C, Bettelli G, Bilotta F, Sanders RD, Audisio R, Borozdina A, et al. European Society of Anaesthesiology evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017;34:192–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Davis D, Searle SD, Tsui A. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: risk reduction and management of delirium. Age Ageing. 2019;48:485–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Delirium Clinical Care Standard 2021. https://doi.org/2021.

  88. T I, S M, K H, T G, Y K, Y A. Postoperative serum interleukin-6 level as a risk factor for development of hyperactive delirium with agitation after head and neck surgery with free tissue transfer reconstruction. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2023.01.005.

  89. Densky J, Eskander A, Kang S, Chan J, Tweel B, Sitapara J, et al. Risk factors associated with postoperative delirium in patients undergoing head and neck free flap reconstruction. JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2019;145:216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Kuhlmann J, Alhammadi E, Mevissen A, Möllmann H. Delirium and sleep disturbances—A narrative review. Z Für Gerontol Geriatr. 2023;56:539–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Oudewortel L, Van Der Roest HG, Onder G, Wijnen VJM, Liperoti R, Denkinger M, et al. The association of anticholinergic drugs and delirium in nursing home patients with dementia: results from the SHELTER Study. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021;22:2087–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Slooter AJC, Otte WM, Devlin JW, Arora RC, Bleck TP, Claassen J, et al. Updated nomenclature of delirium and acute encephalopathy: statement of ten Societies. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:1020–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Montes DM. Postoperative delirium in head and neck cancer patients: a survey of oncologic oral and maxillofacial surgeon practices. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;72:2591–600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Lee SY, Fisher J, Wand APF, Milisen K, Detroyer E, Sockalingam S, et al. Developing delirium best practice: a systematic review of education interventions for healthcare professionals working in inpatient settings. Eur Geriatr Med. 2020;11:1–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Mei X, Liu YH, Han YQ, Zheng CY. Risk factors, preventive interventions, overlapping symptoms, and clinical measures of delirium in elderly patients. World J Psychiatry. 2023;13:973–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Tsui A, Searle SD, Bowden H, Hoffmann K, Hornby J, Goslett A, et al. The effect of baseline cognition and delirium on long-term cognitive impairment and mortality: a prospective population-based study. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2022;3:e232–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Vreeswijk R, Kalisvaart I, Maier AB, Kalisvaart KJ. Development and validation of the delirium risk assessment score (DRAS). Eur Geriatr Med. 2020;11:307–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Zucchelli A, Apuzzo R, Paolillo C, Prestipino V, De Bianchi S, Romanelli G, et al. Development and validation of a delirium risk assessment tool in older patients admitted to the Emergency Department Observation Unit. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021;33:2753–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Freter SH. Predicting post-operative delirium in elective orthopaedic patients: the Delirium Elderly At-Risk (DEAR) instrument. Age Ageing. 2005;34:169–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The authors do not have any conflict of funding to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cranio-and-Maxillo Facial Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, Düsseldorf, 40225, Germany

    Eman Alhammadi, Majeed Rana & Henriette Louise Moellmann

  2. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Universitätsstrasse 1, Düsseldorf, 40225, Germany

    Julian Max Kuhlmann

  3. Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, Düsseldorf, 40225, Germany

    Helmut Frohnhofen

  4. Dubai Health, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Eman Alhammadi

Authors
  1. Eman Alhammadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Max Kuhlmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Majeed Rana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helmut Frohnhofen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Henriette Louise Moellmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, E.A., J.K., H.L.M, H.F.; methodology E.A., J.K.; validation, E.A., J.K., data collection, H.L.M, E.A., J.K. formal analysis, E.A., J.K.; writing—original draft preparation, E.A., J.K., H.L.M; writing—review and editing, H.L.M, E.A., J.K., H.F.; writing—revised the manuscript, H.L.M, E.A.,J.K., H.F.; visualization, H.L.M., E.A., J.K.; supervision, M.R., H.F.; project administration, H.L.M, H.F.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Eman Alhammadi or Henriette Louise Moellmann.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alhammadi, E., Kuhlmann, J.M., Rana, M. et al. Postoperative delirium in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a scoping review. Head Face Med 20, 39 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00439-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-024-00439-9

Keywords

Head & Face Medicine

ISSN: 1746-160X

Contact us