{"title":"Comparison of therapeutic results of closed and open repair of mandibular condylar fractures.","authors":"Amir Tabatabaee, Amin Javanbakht, Meysam Mohammadi Khah, Mehrdad Shahsavari-Pour, Farnaz Dehabadi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mandibular condylar fractures mostly result from traumatic accidents or strife. There is still dispute on the effectiveness of various therapeutic methods. Here we aimed to evaluate and compare the open or closed repair methods for mandibular condylar fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a clinical trial that was performed in 2015-2021 in Iran on all patients that referred to our medical centers with mandibular fractures due to traumatic events. Those cases with severe lateral dislocation of the mandibular condyles or severe dislocations of the fractured parts were assigned to the open surgical treatment group. The other patients were treated using Arch bar + intermaxillary fixation (IMF). The patient's abilities of mouth opening were assessed in centimeters within 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after the operations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>726 mandibular fractures were evaluated. Our data showed that 302 fractures (41.6%) were in the mandibular condyles. Of the 302 condylar fractures, 172 fractures (57.1%) occurred due to automobile accidents and 82 fractures (27.5%) occurred due to direct trauma. 203 patients (67.2%) underwent the close surgical procedures using maxillary and mandibular fixation using arch bar + IMF. 99 patients (32.8%) underwent open mandibular fixation operation and internal fixation (ORIF). Assessments of mouth opening showed significant improvements in this ability within the follow-up period in both groups (P<0.001 for both). Furthermore, we observed that patients treated by the open mandibular fixation procedure had significantly better results within the 6 months and 1 year after the procedures but after 2 years, no significant differences could be observed between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both open and closed surgical approaches for condylar fractures are associated with significant improvements, however, patients that were treated with ORIF had better clinical results in the first year after the surgical procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":45488,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Burns and Trauma","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8610819/pdf/ijbt0011-0385.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Burns and Trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Mandibular condylar fractures mostly result from traumatic accidents or strife. There is still dispute on the effectiveness of various therapeutic methods. Here we aimed to evaluate and compare the open or closed repair methods for mandibular condylar fractures.
Methods: This is a clinical trial that was performed in 2015-2021 in Iran on all patients that referred to our medical centers with mandibular fractures due to traumatic events. Those cases with severe lateral dislocation of the mandibular condyles or severe dislocations of the fractured parts were assigned to the open surgical treatment group. The other patients were treated using Arch bar + intermaxillary fixation (IMF). The patient's abilities of mouth opening were assessed in centimeters within 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years after the operations.
Results: 726 mandibular fractures were evaluated. Our data showed that 302 fractures (41.6%) were in the mandibular condyles. Of the 302 condylar fractures, 172 fractures (57.1%) occurred due to automobile accidents and 82 fractures (27.5%) occurred due to direct trauma. 203 patients (67.2%) underwent the close surgical procedures using maxillary and mandibular fixation using arch bar + IMF. 99 patients (32.8%) underwent open mandibular fixation operation and internal fixation (ORIF). Assessments of mouth opening showed significant improvements in this ability within the follow-up period in both groups (P<0.001 for both). Furthermore, we observed that patients treated by the open mandibular fixation procedure had significantly better results within the 6 months and 1 year after the procedures but after 2 years, no significant differences could be observed between groups.
Conclusion: Both open and closed surgical approaches for condylar fractures are associated with significant improvements, however, patients that were treated with ORIF had better clinical results in the first year after the surgical procedures.