髁状突骨折的开放式治疗与闭合式治疗 我们在一家郊区三级医院 100 例病例中的经验。

IF 0.8 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Manoj Kumar, Sathyanarayanan Ramanujam, Raghu Kumaravelu, Raja Sethupathy Cheeman, Raymond Joseph Periera, Sarah Titus
{"title":"髁状突骨折的开放式治疗与闭合式治疗 我们在一家郊区三级医院 100 例病例中的经验。","authors":"Manoj Kumar, Sathyanarayanan Ramanujam, Raghu Kumaravelu, Raja Sethupathy Cheeman, Raymond Joseph Periera, Sarah Titus","doi":"10.1177/19433875221143852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective Observational Study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Mandibular condyle fractures are distinctive among maxillofacial injuries in which they disrupt mandibular function in a way that other traumatic injuries do not. Condylar fractures can be treated using either the conservative (closed reduction and immobilisation) or surgical (open reduction and internal fixation) approaches. Both of these modalities of treatment have advantages and disadvantages, as well as indications and contraindications. The purpose of this study is to compile and compare our experience in the management of condylar fractures through open and closed reduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The present retrospective analysis included a total 100 patients of condylar fractures in patients > 18 years of age who were randomly divided into nonsurgical and surgical group based on Edward Ellies criteria. In the present study, the outcomes of conservative vs surgical management of condylar fractures were discussed in terms of seven parameters, including the maximal inter-incisal mouth opening, protrusive and lateral excursive movements of the mandible, status of occlusion, deviation of mandible during mouth opening, temporo-mandibular disorders and facial nerve paralysis which were measured and evaluated pre- and post-operatively at different intervals of time. Follow-up period was for 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>It was noted that the main cause of condylar fracture was trauma with a male predilection with an average age of 32.6 ± 1.2 years. Subcondylar fracture was the commonest type of condylar fracture that we encountered. 33.3% of the patients had restricted mouth opening and 57% of the patients had deranged occlusion. 37% of the patients were treated surgically and 48.6% of these fractures were approached using peri-angular approach. More patients had an increased mouth opening and a stable occlusion at the 6 months follow-up when compared to that of the 2 month follow up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>From the above study we can conclude that the treatment plan should be patient specific and follow the algorithm for a particular type of fracture. We endorse the same based on our experience in treating condylar fractures over the last 5 years. The art of decision making solely depends on the surgeon's expertise in managing condylar fractures.</p>","PeriodicalId":46447,"journal":{"name":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10874205/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open vs Closed Management of Condylar Fracture Our Experience of 100 Cases in a Suburban Tertiary Care Hospital.\",\"authors\":\"Manoj Kumar, Sathyanarayanan Ramanujam, Raghu Kumaravelu, Raja Sethupathy Cheeman, Raymond Joseph Periera, Sarah Titus\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19433875221143852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective Observational Study.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Mandibular condyle fractures are distinctive among maxillofacial injuries in which they disrupt mandibular function in a way that other traumatic injuries do not. Condylar fractures can be treated using either the conservative (closed reduction and immobilisation) or surgical (open reduction and internal fixation) approaches. Both of these modalities of treatment have advantages and disadvantages, as well as indications and contraindications. The purpose of this study is to compile and compare our experience in the management of condylar fractures through open and closed reduction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The present retrospective analysis included a total 100 patients of condylar fractures in patients > 18 years of age who were randomly divided into nonsurgical and surgical group based on Edward Ellies criteria. In the present study, the outcomes of conservative vs surgical management of condylar fractures were discussed in terms of seven parameters, including the maximal inter-incisal mouth opening, protrusive and lateral excursive movements of the mandible, status of occlusion, deviation of mandible during mouth opening, temporo-mandibular disorders and facial nerve paralysis which were measured and evaluated pre- and post-operatively at different intervals of time. Follow-up period was for 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>It was noted that the main cause of condylar fracture was trauma with a male predilection with an average age of 32.6 ± 1.2 years. Subcondylar fracture was the commonest type of condylar fracture that we encountered. 33.3% of the patients had restricted mouth opening and 57% of the patients had deranged occlusion. 37% of the patients were treated surgically and 48.6% of these fractures were approached using peri-angular approach. More patients had an increased mouth opening and a stable occlusion at the 6 months follow-up when compared to that of the 2 month follow up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>From the above study we can conclude that the treatment plan should be patient specific and follow the algorithm for a particular type of fracture. We endorse the same based on our experience in treating condylar fractures over the last 5 years. The art of decision making solely depends on the surgeon's expertise in managing condylar fractures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46447,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10874205/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875221143852\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Craniomaxillofacial Trauma & Reconstruction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19433875221143852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计回顾性观察研究:下颌骨髁状突骨折在颌面部损伤中具有独特性,因为它会破坏下颌骨功能,而其他外伤则不会。髁状突骨折可采用保守治疗(闭合复位和固定)或手术治疗(切开复位和内固定)。这两种治疗方式各有利弊,也有适应症和禁忌症。本研究的目的是总结和比较我们在通过切开复位和闭合复位治疗髁突骨折方面的经验:本次回顾性分析共纳入 100 例髁突骨折患者,患者年龄均大于 18 岁,根据 Edward Ellies 标准随机分为非手术组和手术组。在本研究中,髁状突骨折保守治疗与手术治疗的结果将从 7 个参数进行讨论,包括最大龈间张口、下颌骨的前伸和侧方偏移运动、咬合状态、张口时下颌骨的偏移、颞下颌紊乱和面神经麻痹,并在术前和术后的不同时间间隔进行测量和评估。随访期为 6 个月:结果表明,髁突骨折的主要原因是外伤,男性居多,平均年龄(32.6 ± 1.2)岁。髁突下骨折是最常见的髁突骨折类型。33.3%的患者张口受限,57%的患者咬合失调。37%的患者接受了手术治疗,其中48.6%的骨折采用了近角入路。与 2 个月的随访相比,更多患者在 6 个月的随访中张口度增加,咬合稳定:从上述研究中我们可以得出结论,治疗方案应针对患者的具体情况,并遵循特定类型骨折的算法。根据我们过去 5 年治疗髁状突骨折的经验,我们赞同这一观点。决策的艺术完全取决于外科医生在处理髁突骨折方面的专业知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Open vs Closed Management of Condylar Fracture Our Experience of 100 Cases in a Suburban Tertiary Care Hospital.

Study design: Retrospective Observational Study.

Objective: Mandibular condyle fractures are distinctive among maxillofacial injuries in which they disrupt mandibular function in a way that other traumatic injuries do not. Condylar fractures can be treated using either the conservative (closed reduction and immobilisation) or surgical (open reduction and internal fixation) approaches. Both of these modalities of treatment have advantages and disadvantages, as well as indications and contraindications. The purpose of this study is to compile and compare our experience in the management of condylar fractures through open and closed reduction.

Methods: The present retrospective analysis included a total 100 patients of condylar fractures in patients > 18 years of age who were randomly divided into nonsurgical and surgical group based on Edward Ellies criteria. In the present study, the outcomes of conservative vs surgical management of condylar fractures were discussed in terms of seven parameters, including the maximal inter-incisal mouth opening, protrusive and lateral excursive movements of the mandible, status of occlusion, deviation of mandible during mouth opening, temporo-mandibular disorders and facial nerve paralysis which were measured and evaluated pre- and post-operatively at different intervals of time. Follow-up period was for 6 months.

Results: It was noted that the main cause of condylar fracture was trauma with a male predilection with an average age of 32.6 ± 1.2 years. Subcondylar fracture was the commonest type of condylar fracture that we encountered. 33.3% of the patients had restricted mouth opening and 57% of the patients had deranged occlusion. 37% of the patients were treated surgically and 48.6% of these fractures were approached using peri-angular approach. More patients had an increased mouth opening and a stable occlusion at the 6 months follow-up when compared to that of the 2 month follow up.

Conclusions: From the above study we can conclude that the treatment plan should be patient specific and follow the algorithm for a particular type of fracture. We endorse the same based on our experience in treating condylar fractures over the last 5 years. The art of decision making solely depends on the surgeon's expertise in managing condylar fractures.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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