Craniomaxillofacial trauma & reconstruction · 2022
Open vs Closed Management of Condylar Fracture Our Experience of 100 Cases in a Suburban Tertiary Care Hospital.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kumar Manoj, Ramanujam Sathyanarayanan, Kumaravelu Raghu, Cheeman Raja Sethupathy, Periera Raymond Joseph, Titus Sarah
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Observational Study.
OBJECTIVE: Mandibular condyle fractures are distinctive among maxillofacial injuries in which they disrupt mandibular function in a way that other traumatic injuries do not. Condylar fractures can be treated using either the conservative (closed reduction and immobilisation) or surgical (open reduction and internal fixation) approaches. Both of these modalities of treatment have advantages and disadvantages, as well as indications and contraindications. The purpose of this study is to compile and compare our experience in the management of condylar fractures through open and closed reduction.
METHODS: The present retrospective analysis included a total 100 patients of condylar fractures in patients > 18 years of age who were randomly divided into nonsurgical and surgical group based on Edward Ellies criteria. In the present study, the outcomes of conservative vs surgical management of condylar fractures were discussed in terms of seven parameters, including the maximal inter-incisal mouth opening, protrusive and lateral excursive movements of the mandible, status of occlusion, deviation of mandible during mouth opening, temporo-mandibular disorders and facial nerve paralysis which were measured and evaluated pre- and post-operatively at different intervals of time. Follow-up period was for 6 months.
RESULTS: It was noted that the main cause of condylar fracture was trauma with a male predilection with an average age of 32.6 ± 1.2 years. Subcondylar fracture was the commonest type of condylar fracture that we encountered. 33.3% of the patients had restricted mouth opening and 57% of the patients had deranged occlusion. 37% of the patients were treated surgically and 48.6% of these fractures were approached using peri-angular approach. More patients had an increased mouth opening and a stable occlusion at the 6 months follow-up when compared to that of the 2 month follow up.
CONCLUSIONS: From the above study we can conclude that the treatment plan should be patient specific and follow the algorithm for a particular type of fracture. We endorse the same based on our experience in treating condylar fractures over the last 5 years. The art of decision making solely depends on the surgeon's expertise in managing condylar fractures.
OBJECTIVE: Mandibular condyle fractures are distinctive among maxillofacial injuries in which they disrupt mandibular function in a way that other traumatic injuries do not. Condylar fractures can be treated using either the conservative (closed reduction and immobilisation) or surgical (open reduction and internal fixation) approaches. Both of these modalities of treatment have advantages and disadvantages, as well as indications and contraindications. The purpose of this study is to compile and compare our experience in the management of condylar fractures through open and closed reduction.
METHODS: The present retrospective analysis included a total 100 patients of condylar fractures in patients > 18 years of age who were randomly divided into nonsurgical and surgical group based on Edward Ellies criteria. In the present study, the outcomes of conservative vs surgical management of condylar fractures were discussed in terms of seven parameters, including the maximal inter-incisal mouth opening, protrusive and lateral excursive movements of the mandible, status of occlusion, deviation of mandible during mouth opening, temporo-mandibular disorders and facial nerve paralysis which were measured and evaluated pre- and post-operatively at different intervals of time. Follow-up period was for 6 months.
RESULTS: It was noted that the main cause of condylar fracture was trauma with a male predilection with an average age of 32.6 ± 1.2 years. Subcondylar fracture was the commonest type of condylar fracture that we encountered. 33.3% of the patients had restricted mouth opening and 57% of the patients had deranged occlusion. 37% of the patients were treated surgically and 48.6% of these fractures were approached using peri-angular approach. More patients had an increased mouth opening and a stable occlusion at the 6 months follow-up when compared to that of the 2 month follow up.
CONCLUSIONS: From the above study we can conclude that the treatment plan should be patient specific and follow the algorithm for a particular type of fracture. We endorse the same based on our experience in treating condylar fractures over the last 5 years. The art of decision making solely depends on the surgeon's expertise in managing condylar fractures.