下颌髁下骨折口内入路与口外入路治疗的比较

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS Pub Date : 2023-09-28 DOI:10.53730/ijhs.v7ns1.14574
Yaser M El Sheikh, Mohamed F M A Seleem, Hossam H Fawzy
{"title":"下颌髁下骨折口内入路与口外入路治疗的比较","authors":"Yaser M El Sheikh, Mohamed F M A Seleem, Hossam H Fawzy","doi":"10.53730/ijhs.v7ns1.14574","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Mandibular fractures, including fractures of the subcondylar and condylar regions, are common facial fractures. Sub condylar fractures account for 20–62% of all mandibular fractures. But their management remains controversial. Although closed reduction is the most useful method, it can be difficult to achieve anatomical reduction with this technique compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Aim of the work: To compare between intraoral and extraoral approaches in management of submandibular fracture. Patients and methods: This comparative study was conducted in the plastic surgery department, Faculty of medicine-Menoufia University on 20 patients complaining of sub condylar fracture of mandible. Patients were classified into two groups based on surgical approach: Group A: included ten patients undergoing surgical fixation via the intraoral approach. Group B: included ten patients undergoing surgical fixation via extraoral approach Group. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding operating and time. Intraoral approach had a signifcanlty longer operating time compared to extraoral. A statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding interincisal distance. Intraoral approach had a significantly larger interincisal distance compared to extraoral approaches. A statistically significant difference was found between groups regrading field of exposure extraoral have wide field of exposure.","PeriodicalId":47093,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compare between intraorala and extraoral approaches of subcondylar mandibular fracture management\",\"authors\":\"Yaser M El Sheikh, Mohamed F M A Seleem, Hossam H Fawzy\",\"doi\":\"10.53730/ijhs.v7ns1.14574\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Mandibular fractures, including fractures of the subcondylar and condylar regions, are common facial fractures. Sub condylar fractures account for 20–62% of all mandibular fractures. But their management remains controversial. Although closed reduction is the most useful method, it can be difficult to achieve anatomical reduction with this technique compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Aim of the work: To compare between intraoral and extraoral approaches in management of submandibular fracture. Patients and methods: This comparative study was conducted in the plastic surgery department, Faculty of medicine-Menoufia University on 20 patients complaining of sub condylar fracture of mandible. Patients were classified into two groups based on surgical approach: Group A: included ten patients undergoing surgical fixation via the intraoral approach. Group B: included ten patients undergoing surgical fixation via extraoral approach Group. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding operating and time. Intraoral approach had a signifcanlty longer operating time compared to extraoral. A statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding interincisal distance. Intraoral approach had a significantly larger interincisal distance compared to extraoral approaches. A statistically significant difference was found between groups regrading field of exposure extraoral have wide field of exposure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS\",\"volume\":\"88 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v7ns1.14574\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v7ns1.14574","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:下颌骨骨折,包括髁下骨折和髁突骨折,是常见的面部骨折。髁下骨折占所有下颌骨骨折的20-62%。但它们的管理仍存在争议。虽然闭合复位是最有用的方法,但与切开复位内固定(ORIF)相比,该技术难以实现解剖复位。目的:比较口内入路与口外入路治疗下颌下骨折的疗效。患者与方法:在梅诺菲亚大学医学院整形外科对20例主诉下颌骨髁下骨折患者进行对比研究。根据手术入路将患者分为两组:A组:10例患者经口内入路手术固定。B组:10例经口外入路手术固定组。结果:两组手术时间差异有统计学意义。口内入路的手术时间明显长于口外入路。两组间内径距离差异有统计学意义。与口外入路相比,口内入路的内径明显较大。两组间暴露范围的差异有统计学意义,口外暴露范围大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Compare between intraorala and extraoral approaches of subcondylar mandibular fracture management
Background: Mandibular fractures, including fractures of the subcondylar and condylar regions, are common facial fractures. Sub condylar fractures account for 20–62% of all mandibular fractures. But their management remains controversial. Although closed reduction is the most useful method, it can be difficult to achieve anatomical reduction with this technique compared with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Aim of the work: To compare between intraoral and extraoral approaches in management of submandibular fracture. Patients and methods: This comparative study was conducted in the plastic surgery department, Faculty of medicine-Menoufia University on 20 patients complaining of sub condylar fracture of mandible. Patients were classified into two groups based on surgical approach: Group A: included ten patients undergoing surgical fixation via the intraoral approach. Group B: included ten patients undergoing surgical fixation via extraoral approach Group. Results: A statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding operating and time. Intraoral approach had a signifcanlty longer operating time compared to extraoral. A statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding interincisal distance. Intraoral approach had a significantly larger interincisal distance compared to extraoral approaches. A statistically significant difference was found between groups regrading field of exposure extraoral have wide field of exposure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS
International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
15.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Biting into accuracy: Evaluating food frequency questionnaires for denture wearers: A systematic review. Challenges of allergic diseases in the Qassim Region of Saudi Arabia: A call for comprehensive prevention and control strategies. Design and synthesis of a novel isoleucine-derived Schiff base ligand: Structural characterization, molecular docking, and in vitro biological activity evaluation. MicroRNA-183-5p negatively regulates interleukin-8 expression in cervical cancer cells. Vitamin D deficiency in pediatric sickle cell disease patients without crisis - A cry to investigate it on priority.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1