Literature DB >> 34776701

Endoscopically Assisted Treatment of Condylar Base and Neck Fractures: A Single Institution Analysis of Outcomes and Complications.

Michael-Tobias Neuhaus1, Alexander-Nicolai Zeller1, Lena Desch1, Amit Dhawan2, Philipp Jehn1, Nils-Claudius Gellrich1, Rüdiger Zimmerer1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conservative treatment, including observation and closed treatment, as well as open reduction and internal fixation are existing options for treating condylar process fractures. Extraoral approaches are widely preferred for open reduction and internal fixation. Transoral access for condylar base and neck fractures is not yet commonly used as it is technically demanding and requires special equipment.
PURPOSE: In this study, the transoral endoscopically assisted approach is described, and its outcomes and complications were investigated. Imaging data and clinical records of 187 patients with condylar process fractures, treated via endoscopically assisted transoral approach between 2007 and 2017 were analyzed. Parameters included diagnosis and fracture classification, treatment, osteosynthesis configuration and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: Early complications, including infection, transient postoperative malocclusion, pain and limited mouth opening, occurred in 35 patients (18.7%). Late onset complications, such as screw loosening were documented in only 4 patients (2.1%). Revision surgery following postoperative 3D imaging was required in only 3 cases (1.6%). Fragment length ranged from 15.5 to 38.3 mm. In 57.7% of patients with condylar fragment length < 20 mm, a single osteosynthesis plate was used, with no elevated complication rate. Two osteosynthesis plates with 4 screws each was used as standard in longer fragments.
CONCLUSION: Endoscopically assisted transoral treatment of condylar process fractures is a reliable, yet technical demanding technique. It allows for reduction and fixation of fractures with a condylar fragment length of > 15 mm with low postoperative complication and revision rates. © The Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Condylar neck and base fracture; Condylar process fracture; Endoscopically assisted surgery; ORIF; Open reduction and internal fixation; Transoral approach

Year:  2020        PMID: 34776701      PMCID: PMC8554952          DOI: 10.1007/s12663-020-01398-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Maxillofac Oral Surg        ISSN: 0972-8270


  39 in total

1.  Validation of the Eichner index in relation to occlusal force and masticatory performance.

Authors:  Kazunoir Ikebe; Ken-ichi Matsuda; Shunsuke Murai; Yoshinobu Maeda; Takashi Nokubi
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.681

2.  Fractures of the mandibular condyle: A comparison of patients, fractures and treatment characteristics between Groningen (The Netherlands) and Dresden (Germany).

Authors:  Elizabeth T Niezen; Rudolf R M Bos; Baucke van Minnen; Uwe Eckelt; Frank Tavassol; Pieter U Dijkstra
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 3.  Fractures of the mandibular condyle: a review of 466 cases. Literature review, reflections on treatment and proposals.

Authors:  Nicholas Zachariades; Michael Mezitis; Constintine Mourouzis; Demetrius Papadakis; Athena Spanou
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2006-10-19       Impact factor: 2.078

Review 4.  Rigid fixation of mandibular condyle fractures.

Authors:  E Ellis; J Dean
Journal:  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol       Date:  1993-07

5.  Indications for open reduction of mandibular condyle fractures.

Authors:  M F Zide; J N Kent
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1983-02       Impact factor: 1.895

6.  Facial symmetry after closed and open treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process.

Authors:  E Ellis; G Throckmorton
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 1.895

7.  Surgical versus conservative treatment of unilateral condylar process fractures: clinical and radiographic evaluation of 80 patients.

Authors:  V S Konstantinović; B Dimitrijević
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 1.895

8.  Method to determine when open treatment of condylar process fractures is not necessary.

Authors:  Edward Ellis
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.895

9.  Intracapsular condylar fracture of the mandible: our classification and open treatment experience.

Authors:  Dongmei He; Chi Yang; Minjie Chen; Bin Jiang; Baoli Wang
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.895

10.  Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a new classification for surgical approaches.

Authors:  Essam Ahmed Al-Moraissi; Aurélien Louvrier; Giacomo Colletti; Larry M Wolford; Federico Biglioli; Marwa Ragaey; Christophe Meyer; Edward Ellis
Journal:  J Craniomaxillofac Surg       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 2.078

View more
  1 in total

1.  No Significant Bone Resorption after Open Treatment of Mandibular Condylar Head Fractures in the Medium-Term.

Authors:  Michael-Tobias Neuhaus; Nils-Claudius Gellrich; Anna Katharina Sander; Bernd Lethaus; Dirk Halama; Rüdiger M Zimmerer
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.