| Literature DB >> 35911807 |
Saravanan Kandasamy1, Reena Rachel John2.
Abstract
Condylar fractures alone accounts to about 25% to 40% of all the fractures of mandible. Management of condylar fractures has always been a controversy. Nowadays there has been more emphasis on open reduction of condylar fractures by the surgeons.The reasons could be the result of complications of closed reduction where the patient may not be able to masticate properly and deviation still present thereby the structural and functional loss forcing the surgeons' choice to open up. The anterior parotid approach has lesser risk of injury to parotid gland and also to facial nerve we attempted to use mini retro mandibular access for such fractures. So the aim was to explore the feasibility of the mini retro mandibular approach to sub condylar fractures. The patients reported to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery department clinically and radio logically diagnosed and treated for condylar fractures were included. The maximal mouth opening, protrusive and lateral excursive movements, midline orientation with opposing arch, scar visibility, sialocele and facial nerve weakness were all recorded post operatively and compared with pre-operative recording. The mini retro mandibular access with anterior parotid transmessetric approach to sub condylar fractures can be the choice for the surgical management of sub condylar fractures which is absolutely easy, reliable, with less visible scar and with less chances of landing in facial nerve complications. Copyright:Entities:
Keywords: Condylar fractures; extracapsular fractures; jaw fixation techniques; mandibular fractures; open reduction of condylar fractures; subcondylar fractures
Year: 2022 PMID: 35911807 PMCID: PMC9326208 DOI: 10.4103/njms.NJMS_224_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Natl J Maxillofac Surg ISSN: 0975-5950
Figure 1(a) Preoperative view. (b) Step deformity noted. (c) Computed tomography image of the pt
Number of patients operated using this approach
| Associated fractures | Number of patients | Management |
|---|---|---|
| Symphysis | 1 | ORIF |
| Parasymphysis (opposing) | 5 | ORIF |
| Body (opposing) | 1 | ORIF |
| Angle (opposing) | 1 | ORIF |
| Other side condyle | - | |
| Zygomatico maxillary complex (same side) | 2 | ORIF |
| No associated #s but with shortening of ramus on that side | 3 | ORIF |
| Total | 13 |
ORIF: Open reduction and internal fixation
Figure 2(a)Site exposed and reduced - the body of the mandible. (b) plating done (c) Left side - Mini retromandibular incision marking done. (d) laterally overrided condyle. (e)segments reduced by relieving occlusion. (f) Plating done after maxillo-mandibular fixation
Complications encountered during the procedure
| Complications | Number of patients | Management |
|---|---|---|
| Facial nerve injury | - | |
| Parotid fistula | 1 | Tight dressing for 3 days |
| Scar visibility | Very minimal | |
| Infection | Not seen | |
| Inadequate reduction | No |
Comparison of parameters between pre- and post-operative period
| Assessment | Preoperative | Postoperative (immediate) |
|---|---|---|
| Mouth opening | Mean 23 mm | Mean 35 mm |
| Midline shift | Present | Nil |
| Protrusive movement | No | Yes |
| Lateral movement | No | Yes |
| Occlusion | Deranged | Achieved |
Figure 3(a) Orthopantomogram of the pt. (b) Review of the pt - Profile vie