OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study evaluates results and complications of the transoral and extraoral approaches for open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular body, angle, and ramus fractures. Our aim was to describe advantages and disadvantages of the techniques and to develop criteria for choosing between surgical approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients with mandible fractures occurring between August 1999 and October 2001 at a level I trauma center. Only mandibular body, angle, and ramus fractures requiring open reduction were selected for this study. Cases were evaluated for cause, age, gender, dentition, site and extent of fractures, surgical approach, postoperative complications, operative time, and postoperative occlusion. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients with mandibular fractures, 78 had body, angle, or ramus fractures requiring open reduction. Of these, 36 were treated extraorally, and 42 were treated transorally. Criteria for selecting one procedure over another often involved training and surgeon experience and those factors normally considered important in defining the difficulty of treatment and prognosis of the patient. Seven of the 42 patients were converted from a transoral to an extraoral approach because of inadequate exposure. Similar complication rates occurred for the transoral and extraoral approaches, but because of the time required for converting from the transoral to extraoral approach, the average operative time was found to be increased in patients undergoing the transoral approach. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: Decisions regarding treatment approaches for open reduction of mandible fractures often relate to surgeon experience and training, modified by factors that can affect uncomplicated healing such as fracture locations and displacement, comminution of the fracture, infection, dentition, and atrophic changes of the mandible. In some cases, the choice is affected by availability of equipment and experience of operating room personnel. More difficult cases involving an edentulous, atrophic mandible or comminution should be considered for extraoral exposure.
OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study evaluates results and complications of the transoral and extraoral approaches for open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular body, angle, and ramus fractures. Our aim was to describe advantages and disadvantages of the techniques and to develop criteria for choosing between surgical approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients with mandible fractures occurring between August 1999 and October 2001 at a level I trauma center. Only mandibular body, angle, and ramus fractures requiring open reduction were selected for this study. Cases were evaluated for cause, age, gender, dentition, site and extent of fractures, surgical approach, postoperative complications, operative time, and postoperative occlusion. RESULTS: Of the 227 patients with mandibular fractures, 78 had body, angle, or ramus fractures requiring open reduction. Of these, 36 were treated extraorally, and 42 were treated transorally. Criteria for selecting one procedure over another often involved training and surgeon experience and those factors normally considered important in defining the difficulty of treatment and prognosis of the patient. Seven of the 42 patients were converted from a transoral to an extraoral approach because of inadequate exposure. Similar complication rates occurred for the transoral and extraoral approaches, but because of the time required for converting from the transoral to extraoral approach, the average operative time was found to be increased in patients undergoing the transoral approach. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: Decisions regarding treatment approaches for open reduction of mandible fractures often relate to surgeon experience and training, modified by factors that can affect uncomplicated healing such as fracture locations and displacement, comminution of the fracture, infection, dentition, and atrophic changes of the mandible. In some cases, the choice is affected by availability of equipment and experience of operating room personnel. More difficult cases involving an edentulous, atrophic mandible or comminution should be considered for extraoral exposure.
Authors: Daniel Demesh; James A Leonard; Clyde B Schechter; Prince Dhillon; Wayne Hsueh; Howard Stupak Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.611