D R Godden1, J M Robertson. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Peterborough District Hospital.
Abstract
AIM: This study assessed the patients' and clinicians' perception of the outcome of temporomandibular joint arthroscopy. METHOD: All patients who underwent TMJ arthroscopy for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes over a 6-year period were sent a questionnaire that asked about various symptoms attributable to the TMJ. Additionally a review of the clinical notes was performed. RESULTS: 83 patients underwent arthroscopy to 127 temporomandibular joints. The mean follow up was 3.6 years. 55% of patients assessed their jaw function as being effective, jaw movement, pain control, and overall satisfaction were satisfactory in 37%, 57%, and 48% of cases respectively. The clinicians' assessment revealed that 45% of patients had no joint tenderness, 74% of patients were able to open to > 35 mm and 74% of patients were free of any joint noise. 66% of patients were prepared to undergo a second procedure if indicated. CONCLUSION: Overall, 50% of patients seemed to view arthroscopy favourably although many patients still felt that jaw opening was restricted. The outcome was not related to the position and reducibility of the disc at surgery and other variables may be responsible. The disparity between the clinical evaluation and the patients' perception of effectiveness emphasises the importance of patient feedback.
AIM: This study assessed the patients' and clinicians' perception of the outcome of temporomandibular joint arthroscopy. METHOD: All patients who underwent TMJ arthroscopy for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes over a 6-year period were sent a questionnaire that asked about various symptoms attributable to the TMJ. Additionally a review of the clinical notes was performed. RESULTS: 83 patients underwent arthroscopy to 127 temporomandibular joints. The mean follow up was 3.6 years. 55% of patients assessed their jaw function as being effective, jaw movement, pain control, and overall satisfaction were satisfactory in 37%, 57%, and 48% of cases respectively. The clinicians' assessment revealed that 45% of patients had no joint tenderness, 74% of patients were able to open to > 35 mm and 74% of patients were free of any joint noise. 66% of patients were prepared to undergo a second procedure if indicated. CONCLUSION: Overall, 50% of patients seemed to view arthroscopy favourably although many patients still felt that jaw opening was restricted. The outcome was not related to the position and reducibility of the disc at surgery and other variables may be responsible. The disparity between the clinical evaluation and the patients' perception of effectiveness emphasises the importance of patient feedback.