Does surgical treatment of mandibular condyle head (diacapitular) fractures provide better outcomes than closed treatment? - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The choices for managing a condylar head fracture (CHF) of the mandible are either open surgical or closed functional treatments (CFT) and the decision depends on various factors. The purpose of this systematic review was to ascertain from the available literature whether the open method or CFT yields better outcomes in managing CHF. We have systematically reviewed published articles according to the PRISMA statement. The search was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and the Cochrane Library database for comparative studies about both open and closed treatments from inception until April 2023. The outcomes of interest were mouth opening (MO), protrusion, laterotrusion, postoperative pain, and malocclusion. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. The review comprised of 326 cases, among which 177 were managed by open methods and 149 were treated by CFT. The incidence of postoperative malocclusion and pain were significantly less in the open group. MO was better in the open treatment group although this was not statistically significant. Protrusion and laterotrusion occurred slightly more in CFT, although these were also statistically not significant. Overall, meta-analysis favoured open methods of managing CHF. Although enough evidence exists for the use of open methods for selected condylar head fractures, CFT still demonstrated favourable outcomes in undisplaced fractures. The selection of a particular treatment method should be individualised on the basis of each particular case considering the risk/benefits. Further high quality randomised trials are needed to establish a therapeutic guideline.