Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

  • 제40권6호
  • /
  • Pages.297-300
  • /
  • 2014
  • /
  • 2234-7550(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-5930(eISSN)
대한구강악안면외과학회 (The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Outcomes of open versus closed treatment in the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures

  • Kim, Seong-Yong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center) ;
  • Ryu, Jae-Young (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center) ;
  • Cho, Jin-Yong (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center) ;
  • Kim, Hyeon-Min (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Gachon University Gil Medical Center)
  • 투고 : 2014.08.12
  • 심사 : 2014.11.10
  • 발행 : 2014.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes after closed reduction (CR) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the management of subcondylar fractures. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight patients presenting with subcondylar fracture between January 2010 and March 2013 were evaluated retrospectively. Fifteen patients were treated with CR and 33 patients with ORIF. The clinical and radiologic parameters were evaluated during follow-up (mean, 7.06 months; range, 3 to 36 months). Results: In the CR group, no patients had any problems with regard to the clinical parameters. The average period of maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) was 5.47 days. The preoperative average tangential angulation of the fractured fragment was $3.67^{\circ}$, and loss of ramus height was 2.44 mm. In the ORIF group, no clinical problems were observed, and the average period of MMF was 6.33 days. The preoperative average tangential angulation of the subcondylar fragment was $8.66^{\circ}$, and loss of ramus height was 3.61 mm. Conclusion: CR provided satisfactory clinical results, though ORIF provided more accurate reduction of the fractured fragment. So there is no distinct displacement of fractured fragment, CR should be selected than ORIF because of no need for surgery.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Lee SC, Kim YG, Ryu DM, Lee BS, Yoon OB, Jin TH. A clinical and statistical study of condylar fracture of mandible. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;24:326-9.
  2. Lindahl L. Condylar fractures of the mandible. I. Classification and relation to age, occlusion, and concomitant injuries of teeth and teeth-supporting structures, and fractures of the mandibular body. Int J Oral Surg 1977;6:12-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(77)80067-7
  3. Palmieri C, Ellis E 3rd, Throckmorton G. Mandibular motion after closed and open treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:764-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(99)90810-8
  4. Brandt MT, Haug RH. Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;61:1324-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(03)00735-3
  5. Suzuki T, Kawamura H, Kasahara T, Nagasaka H. Resorbable poly-L-lactide plates and screws for the treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: a clinical and radiologic follow-up study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:919-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2004.01.016
  6. Iizuka T, Ladrach K, Geering AH, Raveh J. Open reduction without fixation of dislocated condylar process fractures: long-term clinical and radiologic analysis. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;56:553-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-2391(98)90450-5
  7. Undt G, Kermer C, Rasse M, Sinko K, Ewers R. Transoral miniplate osteosynthesis of condylar neck fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:534-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70082-X
  8. Baker AW, McMahon J, Moos KF. Current consensus on the management of fractures of the mandibular condyle. A method by questionnaire. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:258-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80507-7
  9. Sugiura T, Yamamoto K, Murakami K, Sugimura M. A comparative evaluation of osteosynthesis with lag screws, miniplates, or Kirschner wires for mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:1161-8. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2001.26718
  10. Haug RH, Assael LA. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001;59:370-5. https://doi.org/10.1053/joms.2001.21868

피인용 문헌

  1. Simultaneous surgery for subcondylar fracture and prominent angle of the mandible vol.37, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-015-0028-y
  2. Clinical and radiological outcomes of transoral endoscope-assisted treatment of mandibular condylar fractures vol.45, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.11.005
  3. Open Versus Closed Reduction of Maxillary Fractures: Complications and Resource Utilization vol.28, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1097/scs.0000000000003776
  4. New protocol for simplified reduction and fixation of subcondylar fractures of the mandible: a technical note vol.47, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2021.47.5.403