Comparison of Post Operative Complications in Mandibular Condylar Fractures in Open Versus Closed Reduction Technique
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61581/MJSP.VOL01/02/05Keywords:
pain, Occlusion Disturbance, Open Reduction, Complications, FracturAbstract
Objective: To compare post-operative complications of mandible condylar fractures treated by open versus close reduction technique.
Study design: Randomized control trial study
Study duration: Study was completed in six months from 20-01-2019 to 20-07-2019 at Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nishtar Institute of Dentistry Multan.
Results: Total 60 patients were included in study. 51 (85.0 %) were male patients while 09 (15.0 %) were female patients. Mean age of our study cases was 27.23 ± 5.76 years (with minimum age of our study cases was 20 years while maximum age was 42 years). Of these 60 study cases, 19 (31.7%) were illiterate and 41 (68.3%) were literate, unilateral fracture was noted in 49 (81.7%) and bilateral fracture in 11 (18.3%). Pain in group A was 8 (16%) and in group B was 16 (53.3%) (p = 0.064) while occlusion disturbance was 13.3 % and 43.3 % in group A and group B respectively (p = 0.020).
Conclusion: Our study results support the use of open reduction technique in the treatment of mandibular condylar fracture as compared with closed reduction technique. Open reduction Technique had signi?cantly lower occlusion disturbance and pain was also quite lower in this group. All the clinicians treating such patients should always employ open reduction technique to avoid further complication in such patients which will improve quality of life of these patients.
Downloads
References
1. Erdmann D, Follmar KE, Debruijn M, Bruno AD, Jung SH, Ede lman D, e t a l . A RETROSPECTIVE analysis of facial fracture etiologies. Ann Plast Surg 2008;60:398–403.
2. Ho SY, Liao HT, Chen CH, Chen YC, Chen YR, Chen CT. The radiographic and functional outcome of bilateral mandibular condylar head fractures: a comparison between open a n d c l o s e d t r e a t m e n t . A n n P l a s t Surg2015;74:93-8.
3. Hackenberg B, Lee C, Caterson EJ. Management of subcondylar mandible f r a c t u r e s i n t h e a d u l t p a t i e n t . J CraniofacSurg2014;25:166-71.
4. Eckelt U, Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL,Kuhlisch E, Loukata RA et al open versus closed treatment of fractures of mandibular condylar process-a prospective randomized multi centre study. J Craniofac Surg 2006;34:306-314.
5. Boffano P, Benech P, Gallesio C, Arcuri F, Benech A . Current Opinions on Surgical Treatment of Fractures of the Condylar Head. Craniomaxillofac Trauma Reconstruction 2014;7:92–100.
6. Belli E, Liberatore G, Elidon M , Orabona GD, Piombino P, Maglitto F et al. Surgical evolution in the treatment of mandibular condyle fractures. BMC SURGERY 2015;1-6. 13. 15.
7. Rutges JPHJ, Kruizinga EHW, Rosenberg A, Koole R. Functional results after treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2007;45:30–4.
8. 1Assael LA. Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: an alternative interpretation of the evidence. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61:1333–9.
9. Med J South Punjab. mjspeditor@gmail.com www.mjsp.com.pk 17 REFRENCE 1. 6. . Hackenberg B, Lee C, Caterson EJ. Management of subcondylar mandible fractures in the adult patient. J Craniofac Surg 2014;25:166-71.
10.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Sohail Fareed , Saima Munir, Noorul Ain Arshad, Qamar uz Zaman, Khalil Ahmad Khan, Zafar Iqbal Sajid
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal.
