Background: Subcondylar fractures represent 25 to 35 percent of all mandibular fractures, yet the treatment paradigm has remained controversial. Closed treatment relies on the plasticity of the condyle head during recovery, whereas open treatment is challenging and risks facial nerve injury. Perioperative, functional, and patient-reported outcomes were measured to compare methods of open versus closed treatment of subcondylar fractures.
Methods: Selected displaced subcondylar fracture cases with open (open reduction and internal fixation of subcondylar fracture with maxillomandibular fixation) versus closed (maxillomandibular fixation) treatment were compared (n = 60). Demographics, perioperative data, complications, persistent symptoms, chin deviation, malocclusion, change in mouth opening, functional scores, and FACE-Q patient satisfaction were recorded.
Results: Open versus closed groups had similar demographics and perioperative data, except the open group had longer operating room time (76.39 minutes versus 56.15 minutes). In long-term follow-up, open-treated patients had fewer symptoms (9 percent versus 67 percent), less chin deviation (0 percent versus 40 percent), a less restricted mouth opening (3mm versus 5mm), and better functional scores (1.92 versus 0.861). Transient facial nerve weakness was seen in 6 percent of open cases.
Conclusion: For selected subcondylar fracture patients, open treatment with endoscopic assistance, nerve monitoring, and specialized plates provides superior long-term results compared to closed treatment when considering symptoms and functional parameters.
Clinical Question/level Of Evidence: Therapeutic, II.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000008294 | DOI Listing |
Indian J Plast Surg
December 2024
Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Fractures of the condylar region of the mandible, although fairly common, also generate the most debate regarding management-both closed and open treatment options have been recommended and shown to yield good results. We present our experience with a minimal access retromandibular approach to fractures of the vertical mandible. This is a retrospective study of all patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation for fractures of the vertical mandible (condyle, subcondylar region, ramus) using a retromandibular approach at a tertiary care hospital in a metropolitan city in India between January 2022 and July 2023.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFMaxillofac Plast Reconstr Surg
November 2024
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Marmara University, Pendik Training and Research Hospital, Fevzi Çakmak, Muhsin Yazıcıoğlu Street, Istanbul, 34899, Turkey.
Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the etiology, incidence, demographics, and characteristics of maxillofacial fractures treated at a university hospital over a seven-year period.
Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 1,757 patients with maxillofacial fractures who were referred to our department between May 2012 and March 2019. The patients' demographic and clinical characteristics were noted, as well as the fracture type, location, and etiology.
J Craniofac Surg
October 2024
Division of Plastic, Reconstructive and Cosmetic Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr
September 2024
Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
Study Design: Survey.
Objective: Subcondylar fractures stand out as a particular challenge when treating maxillofacial trauma. The fracture site is often difficult to access and adjacent to critical structures like the facial nerve.
Ear Nose Throat J
September 2024
Park Facial Plastics, Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!