Clinical comparison between the retromandibular approach for reduction and fixation and endoscope-assisted open reduction and internal fixation for mandibular condyle fractures.

OBJECTIVE

Endoscope-assisted transoral open reduction and internal fixation (EAORIF) for mandibular condyle fractures has recently become popular because it is minimally invasive, provides excellent visibility without a large incision, and reduces surgical scarring and the risk of facial nerve injury. This report describes a retrospective clinical study that compared certain clinical parameters, including postoperative function, between the retromandibular (RM) approach and EAORIF.

METHODS

Fifteen patients were treated by the RM approach, whereas 15 underwent EAORIF between July 2006 and September 2011 at Kyushu Dental College, Japan. Clinical indices comprised fracture line, fracture type, number of plates used, surgical duration, bleeding amount, and functional items, including maximum interincisal opening, mandibular deviation on the opening pathway, malocclusion, facial paresthesia, and temporomandibular joint pain and clicking.

RESULTS

The areas subjected to either approach included lower neck and subcondyle. The RM approach was used for mandibular condyle fractures with dislocation of a small bone segment. Both groups used 2 plates in all cases. Surgical duration, maximum interincisal opening, mandibular deviation, occlusion, and temporomandibular joint function at 6 months after surgery were comparable between groups. The average bleeding amount in the EAORIF group was greater than in the RM group. One patient from the RM group developed facial paresthesia that persisted for 6 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

It was concluded that surgical treatment was suitable for fractures of the lower neck and subcondylar. Both procedures showed good results in the functional items of this study.