open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
Purpose : Aim of this study is to describe and compare clinical results and complications epending on the surgical approaches for the mandibular subcondyle fracture Materials and methods : The patients who had been diagnosed as the mandibular subcondyle fracture and underwent open reduction and internal fixation from May 2009 to December 2014 were included. They were divided into two groups depending on the surgical approaches; endoscopically assisted transoral approach and retromandibular approach. Association between the preoperative fracture classification and post-operative results was reviewed depending on the surgical approaches. Results : The number of patients selected in this study was 33. Eighteen patients (male 7, female 11) underwent open reduction and internal fixation via retromandibular approach and fifteen patients (male 12, female 3) underwent open reduction and internal fixation via endoscopically assisted transoral approach. The mean age, follow up period, and operation time were 44.29 15.19 years, 9.97 7.82 months, and 161 89.44 minutes. Post-operative results were all “good” state in the retromandibular approach group regardless of the fracture classification but two patients in the endoscopically assisted transoral approach group underwent re-operation due to “poor” results. The fracture types of two were classified as displacement and lateral override at the same time. There was no statistically significant difference between two groups. Three patients in the retromandibular approach group had experienced facial nerve palsy (17%) temporarily. No one showed malocclusion in this study. There was no significant difference on the complications such as temporomandibular disorder, local infection, and condyle resorption depending on the surgical approaches. Conclusion : In this study, there was no significant difference on the complications between the two groups but retromandibular approach has advantage over endoscopically assisted transoral approach in case of the severely displaced subcondyle fracture.
1. Peter WB, Barry LE, Rainer S. Maxillofacial trauma and Esthetic facial reconstruction. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Living stone 2011.
2. 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;61:1324-1332.
3. Villarreal PM, Monje F, Junquera LM, Mateo J, Morillo AJ, Gonzalez C. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinants of treatment and outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004;62:155-163.
4. Delvin MF, Hislop WS, Carton ATM: Open reduction and internal fixation of fractured mandibular condyles by a retromandibular approach:surgical morbidity and informed consent. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;40:23-25.
5. Manisali M, Amin M, Aghabeigi B, Newman L. Retromandibular approach to the mandibular condyle: a clinical and cadaveric study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003;32(3):253-256.
6. MacLennan WD. Consideration of 180 cases of typical fractures of the mandibular condylar process. Br J Plast Surg 1952;5:122-128.
7. Jensen T, Jensen J, Norholt SE, Dahl M, Lenk-Hansen L, Svensson P. Open reduction and rigid internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures by an intraoral approach: a long-term follow-up study of 15patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;64:1771-1779.
8. Ellis E, McFadden D, Simon P, Throckmorton G. Surgical complications with open treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:950-958.
9. Park JM, Jang YW, Kim SG, Park YW, Rotaru H, Baciut G, et al. Comparative study of the prognosis of an extracorporeal reduction and a closed treatment in mandibular condyle head and/or neck fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010;68:2986-2993.
10. Schon R, Gutwald R, Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R. Endoscopy-assisted open treatment of condylar fractures of the mandible:extraoral vs intraoral approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:237-243.
11. 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;88:534-543.
12. Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, Kuhlisch E, Loukota RA, Rasse M, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed treatment and mandibulomaxillary fixation of fractures of the mandibular condylar process: a randomized, prospective, multicenter study with special evaluation of fracture level. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:2537-2544.
13. Bhagol A, Singh V, Kumar I, Verma A. Prospective evaluation of a new classification system for the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;69:1159-1165.
14. Schon R, Gutwald R, Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R. Endoscopy-assisted open treatment of condylar fractures of the mandible:extraoral vs intraoral approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002;31:237-243.
15. Schmelzeisen R, Cienfuegos-Monroy R, Schon R, Chen CT, Cunningham L, Jr., Goldhahn S. Patient benefit from endoscopically assisted fixation of condylar neck fractures-a randomized controlled trial. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:147-158.
16. Paeng JY, Ok YJ, Myoung H, et al. Endoscopicassisted open reduction and internal fixation (EAORIF) for condylar fracture. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006;32:474-481.
17. Choi BH, Yoo JK. Open reduction of condylar neck fractures with exposure of the facial nerve. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88:292-296.
18. Narayanan V, Kannan R, Sreekumar K. Retromandibular approach for reduction and fixation of mandibular condylar fractures: A clinical experience. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;38:835-839.
19. Raveh J, Vuillemin T, Ladrach K. Open reduction of the dislocated, fractured condylar process:indications and surgical procedures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1989;47:120-126.