Kyle Tracy1, Rajesh Gutta2. 1. Resident, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. 2. Voluntary Assistant Professor, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; Private Practice, Mountain State Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, Charleston, WV. Electronic address: rajeshg76@yahoo.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of mandible fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation versus adjunctive intermaxillary fixation (IMF) using 2 different techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review. The medical records of consecutive patients with mandible fractures treated surgically with adjunctive use of IMF (embrasure wires vs arch bars) were reviewed for demographic data, etiology, fracture location, antibiotic use, and interval to repair. Specifically, the complications, including infection, malunion or nonunion, hardware failure, and wound dehiscence, were recorded. The data were analyzed using Student's t test and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. A descriptive cost analysis was also performed and compared with those from previously published studies. RESULTS: The data from 86 subjects were included in the present study. Of the 86 subjects, 33 were in the embrasure wire group and 53 in the arch bar group. Of the patients in the arch bar group, 26% had complications compared with 15% in the embrasure wire IMF group. No statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of infection (P = .63), hardware failure (P = .75), malocclusion (P = .85), and nonunion (P = 1.0). However, the cost of arch bar placement and removal was approximately $2,672 more than the placement of embrasure wires. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with embrasure wire IMF had slightly better clinical outcomes compared with those treated with arch bar IMF. Also, the cost reduction for patients treated with embrasure wire IMF was significant.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of mandible fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation versus adjunctive intermaxillary fixation (IMF) using 2 different techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review. The medical records of consecutive patients with mandible fractures treated surgically with adjunctive use of IMF (embrasure wires vs arch bars) were reviewed for demographic data, etiology, fracture location, antibiotic use, and interval to repair. Specifically, the complications, including infection, malunion or nonunion, hardware failure, and wound dehiscence, were recorded. The data were analyzed using Student's t test and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. A descriptive cost analysis was also performed and compared with those from previously published studies. RESULTS: The data from 86 subjects were included in the present study. Of the 86 subjects, 33 were in the embrasure wire group and 53 in the arch bar group. Of the patients in the arch bar group, 26% had complications compared with 15% in the embrasure wire IMF group. No statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of infection (P = .63), hardware failure (P = .75), malocclusion (P = .85), and nonunion (P = 1.0). However, the cost of arch bar placement and removal was approximately $2,672 more than the placement of embrasure wires. CONCLUSIONS:Patients treated with embrasure wire IMF had slightly better clinical outcomes compared with those treated with arch bar IMF. Also, the cost reduction for patients treated with embrasure wire IMF was significant.