Literature DB >> 18634944

Closed versus open operative treatment of nondisplaced diacapitular (Class VI) fractures.

Constantin A Landes1, Kai Day, Ruben Lipphardt, Robert Sader.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was assessment of whether open reduction and internal fixation of high nondisplaced, nondislocated diacapitular fractures (Class VI according to Spiessl and Schroll) have better 1-year results compared with closed treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients treated 2001 to 2005 with 26 (4 double) Class VI fractures prospectively entered this evaluation; in randomized fashion 9 (41%) patients had open reduction and internal fixation, 13 (59%) had closed treatment. Facial symmetry, nerve function, scarring, pain, and interincisal maximum distance were judged clinically; condylar translation by sonography; repositioning and reossification upon postoperative and 1-year follow-up radiographs.
RESULTS: Altogether 17 (77%) patients presented for follow-up; 8 (47%) closed treatment, 9 (53%) open reduction and internal fixation. All patients evinced normal vertical opening. Insufficient condylar translation (<6 mm opening, <3 mm protrusion and mediotrusion) was prevalent in 2 open reduction and internal fixation and 2 closed treatment patients, persistent pain in 2 open reduction and internal fixation patients, and deflection greater than 4 mm in 2 open reduction and internal fixation patients. Partial facial nerve paresis was not encountered. In 1 open reduction and internal fixation patient a broken osteofixation was removed and 1 closed treatment patient had dysocclusion. Vertical medial fragment position was successfully restored by open reduction and internal fixation with, however, considerable remodeling (lateral condyle support is unaltered in Class VI). Closed treatment did not succeed in vertical repositioning but also evinced less remodeling. Angular fragment rectification in open reduction and internal fixation was successful; in closed treatment slight enlargement of the angulation was encountered at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Closed treatment within this study produced 2 of 8 (25%), open reduction and internal fixation compared with 2 of 9 (22%) unacceptable results and postoperative condyle remodeling. Therefore success rates of 75% versus 78% were attained, and closed treatment should therefore be preferred. However, sufficiently retentive resorbable osteofixation with intraosseous localization could permit better open reduction and internal fixation results than the microplates and screws at the dorsal condylar circumference applied within this study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18634944     DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.06.668

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg        ISSN: 0278-2391            Impact factor:   1.895


  8 in total

1.  [Maxillary and mandibular fractures. Treatment concepts in maxillofacial surgery].

Authors:  W Waiss; M Gosau; K Koyama; T E Reichert
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.284

2.  Comparison of two surgical techniques (HOO vs. BSSO) for mandibular osteotomies in orthognathic surgery-a 10-year retrospective study.

Authors:  Lukas B Seifert; Christopher Langhans; Yakub Berdan; Sophie Zorn; Michelle Klos; Constantin Landes; Robert Sader
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2022-05-20

Review 3.  Long-term Complications of Isolated and Combined Condylar Fractures: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Margaux Nys; Tim Van Cleemput; Jakob Titiaan Dormaar; Constantinus Politis
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2021-06-23

Review 4.  Open versus closed reduction: diacapitular fractures of the mandibular condyle.

Authors:  Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2012-07-28

5.  Evaluation of the Mandibular Function, after Nonsurgical Treatment of Unilateral Subcondylar Fracture: A 1-Year Follow-Up Study.

Authors:  Sudheesh K M; Rajendra Desai; Siva Bharani K Sn; Subhalakshmi S
Journal:  Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstr       Date:  2016-07-08

6.  Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Closed Reduction and Maxillomandibular Fixation of Condylar Fractures of the Mandible: A Prospective Study.

Authors:  Rathod Prakash; Ramesh K; Aditya M Alwala; Rachana Porika; Saideep Katkuri
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-01-12

Review 7.  Mandibular Subcondylar Fractures: A Review on Treatment Strategies.

Authors:  Mohammad Bayat; Milad Parvin; Ali Aghaei Meybodi
Journal:  Electron Physician       Date:  2016-10-25

Review 8.  Clinical Assessment of Retromandibular Antero-Parotid Approach for Reduction of Mandibular Subcondylar Fractures: Report of 60 Cases and Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Alireza Parhiz; Milad Parvin; Sasan Sanjari Pirayvatlou
Journal:  Front Dent       Date:  2020-08-28
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.