Comparing Current Practice Habits for Treatment of Subcondylar Fracture Among Craniomaxillofacial Surgeons.

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Heather K Schopper, Brandyn Dunn, Richard Davila, Kevin J Sykes, John P Flynn, J David Kriet, Clinton D Humphrey
{"title":"Comparing Current Practice Habits for Treatment of Subcondylar Fracture Among Craniomaxillofacial Surgeons.","authors":"Heather K Schopper, Brandyn Dunn, Richard Davila, Kevin J Sykes, John P Flynn, J David Kriet, Clinton D Humphrey","doi":"10.1177/19433875231194242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Survey.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Subcondylar fractures stand out as a particular challenge when treating maxillofacial trauma. The fracture site is often difficult to access and adjacent to critical structures like the facial nerve. Current treatment paradigms vary widely and we endeavored to elucidate these approaches from surgeons across the full breadth of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was designed to gather general background training and experience information, perceived indications for ORIF of subcondylar fractures, options for treating subcondylar fractures, and reasoning for choosing or not choosing a given treatment approach. The survey was sent to members of AO CMF and the American Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery. Responses were collected for 4 weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>514 total responses to the survey were obtained (response rate 17%). Of these, 43 (8.4%) identified as Otolaryngology trained, 417 (81.1%) as OMFS trained, and 54 (10.5%) as Plastic Surgery trained. While there was broad agreement in the indications for open repair, surgical approaches differed by specialty background as well as AO faculty member status. Those with less experience were less likely to perform open approaches due to lack of comfort with this skill set.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are some key differences in approaches to treatment of subcondylar fractures based upon specialty background and experience level. This provides an opportunity for further education to ensure optimal treatment for patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":46447,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11437541/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875231194242","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Survey.

Objective: Subcondylar fractures stand out as a particular challenge when treating maxillofacial trauma. The fracture site is often difficult to access and adjacent to critical structures like the facial nerve. Current treatment paradigms vary widely and we endeavored to elucidate these approaches from surgeons across the full breadth of Craniomaxillofacial Surgery.

Methods: A survey was designed to gather general background training and experience information, perceived indications for ORIF of subcondylar fractures, options for treating subcondylar fractures, and reasoning for choosing or not choosing a given treatment approach. The survey was sent to members of AO CMF and the American Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery. Responses were collected for 4 weeks.

Results: 514 total responses to the survey were obtained (response rate 17%). Of these, 43 (8.4%) identified as Otolaryngology trained, 417 (81.1%) as OMFS trained, and 54 (10.5%) as Plastic Surgery trained. While there was broad agreement in the indications for open repair, surgical approaches differed by specialty background as well as AO faculty member status. Those with less experience were less likely to perform open approaches due to lack of comfort with this skill set.

Conclusions: There are some key differences in approaches to treatment of subcondylar fractures based upon specialty background and experience level. This provides an opportunity for further education to ensure optimal treatment for patients.

比较颅颌面外科医生目前治疗髁下骨折的实践习惯。
研究设计调查:在治疗颌面部创伤时,软骨下骨折是一项特殊的挑战。骨折部位往往难以触及,而且毗邻面神经等重要结构。目前的治疗范例千差万别,我们试图从整个颅颌面外科的外科医生那里阐明这些方法:我们设计了一项调查,以收集一般背景培训和经验信息、软骨下骨折 ORIF 的感知适应症、治疗软骨下骨折的选择,以及选择或不选择特定治疗方法的理由。调查问卷发送给了 AO CMF 和美国面部整形外科学会的会员。收集回复的时间为 4 周:调查共收到 514 份回复(回复率为 17%)。其中 43 人(8.4%)接受过耳鼻喉科培训,417 人(81.1%)接受过 OMFS 培训,54 人(10.5%)接受过整形外科培训。虽然在开放性修复的适应症方面存在广泛共识,但手术方法因专业背景和 AO 教员身份而异。经验较少的医生不太可能进行开放式手术,因为他们对这一技能缺乏舒适感:结论:根据专业背景和经验水平的不同,治疗髁下骨折的方法也存在一些关键差异。这为进一步开展教育提供了机会,以确保为患者提供最佳治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction
Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信