"Does the Exploration of the Temporomandibular Joint Using a Deep Subfascial Technique Result in a Superior Operative Outcome?".

Purpose: The literature is replete with various approaches for the temporomandibular joint (TMJ), each with its own distinct advantages and disadvantages. None of these approaches, however, have been associated with superior operative outcomes. The purpose of this study was to measure the efficacy of three operative approaches to TMJ, namely superficial, subfascial, and deep subfascial approaches. The aim was to contrast selected intraoperative and postoperative outcomes among these surgical approaches.

Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of subjects presenting to outpatient department. The primary predictor variables were three dissection planes of TMJ: Group-I (superficial), Group-II (subfascial), and Group-III (deep subfascial). The primary outcome variables were quality of surgical field employing fromme scale, dissection time in minutes, amount of blood loss in milliliters, and facial nerve function (FNF) using House-Brackmann scale. The secondary outcome variables were postoperative pain using visual-analog scale and swelling in millimeters measured on 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days and quality of life using facial clinimetric evaluation questionnaire at 6-month follow-up. Age, gender, side, diagnosis, and type of surgery were the covariates. The data were analyzed using descriptive, comparative, and regression analysis. A P value of less than .05 was considered statistically significant.

Result: The study included thirty subjects (8 males and 22 females) with various TMJ disorders ranging in age from 8 years to 65 years (mean 27.83 ± 10.52). On evaluation of intraoperative parameters, subfascial approach had statistically significant superior quality of surgical field (Group-I: 1.90 ± 0.57; Group-II: 1.10 ± 0.32; Group-III: 1.40 ± 0.52; P value = .006), statistically significant shortest dissection time (Group-I: 18.30 ± 3.74 min; Group-II: 13.240 ± 1.96 min; Group-III: 16.20 ± 1.99 min; with P value = .03), and statistically significant lower amount of blood loss compared with other groups (Group-I: 92.40 ± 4.74 ml: Group-II: 82.30 ± 3.77 ml; Group-III: 84.60 ± 3.06 ml; P value<.001). On assessment of postoperative parameters, only FNF of temporal branch showed statistically significant difference from 24 hours till 3 months with better outcome in deep subfascial approach. Mean scores of FNF at 24 hours and 1-week (Group-I: 4.20 ± 2.39; Group-II: 2.40 ± 2.27; Group-III: 1.50 ± 1.58 P = .02) and 1-month and 3-month (Group-I: 2.70 ± 1.82; Group-II: 1.20 ± 0.63; Group-III: 1.00 ± 0.00 P = .04).

Conclusions: The subfascial approach significantly improved intraoperative outcomes and deep subfascial approach was comparatively safe with fewer incidence of facial nerve injury.