Recall of Complications and Satisfaction of Consent in Mandibular Third Molar Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Single Blind Study ZC30-ZC34
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, 56000 Jalan Yaacob Latif Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Introduction: Informed consent prior to any medical procedure is important for legal, ethical and administrative reasons. Informed consent intends to improve the patientsâ€™ knowledge which will allow involvement of the patient in the decision making process. Identifying the most effective and well-received ways to conduct this process is an important aspiration for clinicians. This is especially true for common procedure such as the Mandibular Third Molar Surgery (MTMS).
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the recall of complications of MTMS and satisfaction between two informed consent interventions.
Materials and Methods: This parallel randomised controlled study involved subjects between 18-42-year-old who underwent wisdom tooth surgery in the 10-month study period in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Clinic, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. A total of 120 subjects were enrolled and assigned to the verbal (V) or combined Written-Verbal (WV) groups. The recall of complications was assessed in three phases specifically during the first consultation phase (first phase), the preoperative phase (second phase) and the postsurgery phase a week after the surgery (third phase). The score was categorised into poor, moderate and good. The association between the score of recall and interventions was assessed using the Fisherâ€™s-exact test. Comparison of the percentage of recall between the first, second and third phases used the Friedman test while the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare the percentage of recall response (median) between the first and second phases, second and third phases and first and third phases.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the recall rate between the V compared to VW group in all three phases. A statistically significant difference was observed between the first and the second phases (Z= -2.50, p=0.01) and between the first and third phases (Z=-2.55, p=0.01) in the WV group. In the V intervention, only the first and the third phases showed a statistically significant difference (Z=-2.11, p=0.04). Overall, 97.5% of subjects were satisfied with the information received.
Conclusion: The current practice of obtaining informed consent with verbal intervention is equivalent to the verbal and written intervention.