COMPARISON OF INTERNAL FIXATION METHODS AND MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGICAL APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENT OF MANDIBULAR FRACTURES
Abstract
Background and Aim: Mandibular fractures are one of the
most common fracture types in the maxillofacial region, with
condylar and angular fractures being particularly prevalent. In
recent years, endoscopic approaches, have become increasingly
widespread as alternatives to traditional internal fixation
methods, in the treatment of maxillofacial traumas. The
endoscopic treatment of mandibular fractures is a minimally
invasive technique. The aim of this study is to evaluate and
compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of endoscopyassisted
open reduction and internal fixation (EAORIF) and
conventional open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the
treatment of mandibular fractures.
Materials and Methods: In this study, 18 patients
diagnosed with mandibular fractures were randomly divided
into two groups. Nine patients underwent EAORIF, while the
remaining patients underwent ORIF under general anesthesia.
Postoperative evaluations were conducted clinically and
radiologically to assess the advantages and disadvantages of
both techniques.
Results: No significant difference was found in both methods
in terms of age, time between trauma and operation, and
hospital stay (p>0.05). However, the surgical duration was
longer in the EAORIF group (p<0.05). No significant differences
were observed between the two groups in terms of occlusion
stability and fracture healing (p>0.05).
Conclusion: These findings suggest that EAORIF is an
effective minimally invasive alternative to conventional ORIF,
offering improved postoperative recovery despite its technical
complexity.
Keywords
Condylar Fractures Endoscopic Approach Internal Fixation Mandible Fractures Minimally Invasive
Ethical Statement
Ethics committee approval was received from Dicle University Faculty of Dentistry Local Ethics Committee, dated 24.06.2020 and with protocol number 2020-26.
Supporting Institution
This research was supported by Dicle University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Office with project number DİŞ.20.022.
References
- Reference1. Müller R, Schmidt H, Wagner T. Soft tissue complications in open reduction techniques. Injury 2020; 51: 1011-1019.
- Reference2. Chen W, Zhang X, Liu Y. Minimally invasive endoscopic techniques in fracture management: a review. J Orthop Surg 2021; 29: 112- 120.
- Reference3. De Groen PC. History of the endoscope [scanning our past]. Proc IEEE 2017; 105: 1987-1995.
- Reference4. Watson SW, Niamtu J 3rd, Cunningham LL Jr. The endoscopic brow and midface lift. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2003; 11: 145-155.
- Reference5. Cunningham LL Jr, Peterson GP. Historical development of endoscopy. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am 2003; 11: 109- 127.
- Reference6. Bansal A, Chaudhary D, Kukreja N, Gupta NK, Kukreja U, Bansal J et al. Seeing is believing - Endoscopy in the clinical practice of dentistry: a review of literature. Indian J Dent Sci 2012; 4: 690-693.
- Reference7. White RD. Arthroscopy of the temporomandibular joint: technique and operative images. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am 2003; 11: 129-144.
- Reference8. Nahlieli O, Moshonov J, Zagury A, Michaeli E, Casap N. Endoscopic approach to dental implantology. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011; 69: 186-191.
- Reference9. Bos RR, Ward Booth RP, de Bont LG. Mandibular condyle fractures: a consensus. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 37: 87-89.
- Reference10. Shakya S, Zhang X, Liu L. Key points in surgical management of mandibular condylar fractures. Chin J Traumatol 2020; 23: 63-70.
- Reference11. Al-Moraissi EA, Louvrier A, Colletti G. Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and metaanalysis based on a new classification for surgical approaches. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2018; 46: 398-412.
- Reference12. Brandt MT, Haug RH. Open versus closed reduction of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 1324-1332.
- Reference13. Ellis E 3rd, Dean J. Rigid fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1993; 76: 6-15.
- Reference14. Schon R, Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R. Follow-up of condylar fractures of the mandible in 8 patients at 18 months after transoral endoscopic-assisted open treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 49-54.
- Reference15. Schon R, Gutwald R, Schramm A, Gellrich NC, Schmelzeisen R. Endoscopy-assisted open treatment of condylar fractures of the mandible: extraoral vs intraoral approach. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 31: 237-243.
- Reference16. Pedroletti F, McCain JP. Endoscopically assisted repair of mandibular angle fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68: 912- 914.
- Reference17. Kellman RM. Endoscopic approach to subcondylar mandible fractures. Facial Plast Surg 2004; 20: 239-247.
- Reference 18. Frake PC, Goodman JF, Joshi AS. Feasibility of purely endoscopic intramedullary fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2015; 26: 91-93.
- Reference19. Gordon PE, Kaban LB, Tagoni JR, Troulis MJ. Minimally invasive oral and maxillofacial surgery trauma. In: Fonseca RJ, editor. Oral and maxillofacial trauma Oxford: Saunders; 2013. p. 828-843.
- Reference20. Williams WB, Abukawa H, Shuster V, Kaban LB. A comparison of postoperative edema after intraoral vs. endoscopic mandibular ramus osteotomy. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 8.
- Reference21. Kumar A, Yadav N, Singh S, Chauhan N. Minimally invasive (endoscopic-computer assisted) surgery: technique and review. Ann Maxillofac Surg 2016; 6: 159-164.
- Reference22. Lee C, Mueller RV, Lee K, Mathes SJ. Endoscopic subcondylar repair. Functional, aesthetic and radiographic outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 1998; 102: 1434-1444.
- Reference23. Lee C, Stiebel M, Young DM. Cranial nerve VII region of the traumatized facial skeleton: optimizing fracture repair with the endoscope. J Trauma 2000; 48: 423-431.
- Reference24. Cavalcanti SCSXB, Taufer B, Rodrigues AF, Luz JGC. Endoscopic surgery versus open reduction treatment of mandibular condyle fractures: a meta-analysis. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg 2021; 49: 749- 757.
- Reference25. Sanati-Mehrizy P, Massenburg BB, Sherif RD, Ingargiola MJ, Motakef S, Taub PJ. Review of endoscopic repair of mandible fractures. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30: 489-492.
- Reference26. Haug RH, Brandt MT. Traditional versus endoscope-assisted open reduction with rigid internal fixation (ORIF) of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 1272-1279.
- Reference27. Ellis E, Moss KF, El-Attar A. Ten years of mandibular fractures in analysis of 2317 cases. Oral Surg 1985 ;2: 120-129.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery |
| Journal Section | Original Research |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | April 24, 2025 |
| Submission Date | May 20, 2024 |
| Acceptance Date | March 3, 2025 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2025 Volume: 49 Issue: 1 |
