Andreasen Jens Ove, Storgård Jensen Simon, Kofod Thomas, Schwartz Ole, Hillerup Sören
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dent Traumatol. 2008 Feb;24(1):17-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2006.00498.x.
The clinical outcome of closed vs open reduction and rigid fixation was compared based on a systematic review of the literature. Ten non-randomized retrospective studies were found. In six of these ten studies, the complication rate was significantly increased when open reduction and plating was performed. In the remaining studies, a slightly elevated (but not significant) infection rate was found when compared with closed reduction. Altogether, an infection rate of 5.0% was found in the closed reduction group whereas 10.6% and 14.6% were found when open reduction was performed using either plates or wires. Nerve injuries were slightly increased when open reduction was found (although not significant). With regard to occlusal disturbances, no difference was found in the open and closed reduction group. Concerning overall complication problems, six of seven studies showed more problems after open than closed reduction. In conclusion, this literature review using retrospective studies has raised doubts regarding the superiority of open reduction and rigid splinting, compared to closed reduction and intermaxillary splinting. However, a bias concerning the preferential use of open reduction in case of more complicated fractures cannot be excluded, which might explain the differences found between the two procedures. Prospective, randomized clinical trials are needed to illuminate this problem.
基于对文献的系统回顾,比较了闭合复位与切开复位及坚强内固定的临床结果。共检索到10项非随机回顾性研究。在这10项研究中的6项中,切开复位并钢板固定时并发症发生率显著增加。在其余研究中,与闭合复位相比,感染率略有升高(但不显著)。总体而言,闭合复位组的感染率为5.0%,而切开复位使用钢板或钢丝时感染率分别为10.6%和14.6%。切开复位时神经损伤略有增加(尽管不显著)。关于咬合紊乱,切开复位组与闭合复位组未发现差异。关于总体并发症问题,7项研究中的6项显示切开复位后比闭合复位有更多问题。总之,这项使用回顾性研究的文献综述对切开复位及坚强内固定优于闭合复位及颌间固定提出了质疑。然而,不能排除在骨折更复杂的情况下优先使用切开复位的偏差,这可能解释了两种手术方法之间的差异。需要进行前瞻性随机临床试验来阐明这个问题。