Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Closed Treatment and Mandibulomaxillary Fixation of Fractures of the Mandibular Condylar Process: A Randomized, Prospective, Multicenter Study With Special Evaluation of Fracture Level

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Matthias Schneider - , Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Author)
  • Francois Erasmus - (Author)
  • Klaus Louis Gerlach - , Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg (Author)
  • Eberhard Kuhlisch - , Institute for Medical Informatics and Biometry (Author)
  • Richard A. Loukota - , University of Leeds (Author)
  • Michael Rasse - , University of Innsbruck (Author)
  • Johannes Schubert - , Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (Author)
  • Hendrik Terheyden - , Helios Clinics Kassel (Author)
  • Uwe Eckelt - , Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (Author)

Abstract

Purpose: This randomized, clinical multicenter trial investigated the treatment outcomes of displaced condylar fractures, and whether radiographic fracture level was a prognostic factor in therapeutic decision-making between open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) versus closed reduction and mandibulomaxillary fixation (CRMMF). Patients and Methods: Sixty-six patients with 79 displaced fractures (deviation of 10° to 45°, or shortening of the ascending ramus ≥2 mm) of the condylar process of the mandible at 7 clinical centers were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to CRMMF (n = 30 patients) or ORIF (n = 36 patients) treatment. The following parameters were measured 6 months after the trauma. Clinical parameters included mouth opening, protrusion, and laterotrusion. Radiographic parameters included level of the fracture, deviation of the fragment, and shortening of the ascending ramus. Subjective parameters included pain (according to a visual analogue scale), discomfort, and subjective functional impairment with a mandibular functional impairment questionnaire. Results: The difference in average mouth opening was 12 mm (P ≤ .001) between both treatment groups. The average pain level (visual analogue scale from 0 to 100) was 25 after CRMMF, and 1 after ORIF (P ≤ .001). In 53 unilateral fractures, better functional results were observed for ORIF compared with CRMMF, irrespective of fracture level (condylar base, neck, or intracapsular head). Unexpectedly, the subjective discomfort level decreased with ascending level of the fracture. In patients with bilateral condylar fractures, ORIF was especially advantageous. Conclusion: Fractures with a deviation of 10° to 45°, or a shortening of the ascending ramus ≥2 mm, should be treated with ORIF, irrespective of level of the fracture.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2537-2544
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of oral and maxillofacial surgery
Volume66
Issue number12
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2008
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

PubMed 19022134

Keywords