Engelstad Mark E, Kelly Patricia
Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Jan;69(1):120-4. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.06.209. Epub 2010 Oct 29.
The management of some mandible fractures requires maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) intraoperatively but not postoperatively. Intraoperative MMF with arch bars has significant disadvantages, including duration of application and risk of disease transmission. Some surgeons have sought to minimize these disadvantages, improve efficiency, and decrease cost by omitting formal MMF altogether and manually stabilizing the occlusion. Embrasure wires are a method of intraoperative MMF with significant potential advantages. The purpose of this investigation was to compare embrasure wires with Erich arch bars (Karl Leibinger Co, Mulheim, Germany) for intraoperative stabilization of mandible fractures.
This retrospective case review comprised 50 patients with a primary diagnosis of mandible fracture requiring open reduction-internal fixation with intraoperative MMF. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: intraoperative MMF using embrasure wires (group A) or intraoperative MMF using arch bars (group B). In each group the time required to place the MMF was recorded in whole minutes. The success or failure of the technique to maintain stable MMF throughout the procedure was assessed.
Intraoperative MMF was used with embrasure wires in 27 of 50 patients (54%) and with arch bars in 23 of 50 (46%). The mean time required for placement of embrasure wire MMF (2.51 minutes) was significantly (P < .001) less than the mean time required for placement of arch bar MMF (25.47 minutes). The quality of MMF was judged to be stable for the duration of fixation in 24 of 27 patients (89%) in the embrasure wire MMF group and 22 of the 23 patients (96%) in the arch bar group. This difference was not significant (P = .61).
Embrasure wires can be placed in significantly less time than arch bars, and they provide a reliable form of intraoperative MMF during mandible fracture repair. For intraoperative MMF, embrasure wires offer significant advantages compared with arch bars by reducing application time. In addition, embrasure wires may reduce the risk of disease transmission by decreasing the number of wires required for MMF.
某些下颌骨骨折的治疗在术中需要进行颌间固定(MMF),但术后无需如此。使用牙弓夹板进行术中MMF存在显著缺点,包括应用时间以及疾病传播风险。一些外科医生试图通过完全省略正式的MMF并手动稳定咬合来尽量减少这些缺点、提高效率并降低成本。楔状隙钢丝是一种具有显著潜在优势的术中MMF方法。本研究的目的是比较楔状隙钢丝与 Erich 牙弓夹板(德国米尔海姆卡尔·莱宾格公司)在术中稳定下颌骨骨折方面的效果。
这项回顾性病例分析纳入了50例初步诊断为下颌骨骨折且需要在术中进行切开复位内固定并使用MMF的患者。患者被分为两组:使用楔状隙钢丝进行术中MMF的患者(A组)和使用牙弓夹板进行术中MMF的患者(B组)。记录每组放置MMF所需的时间,精确到分钟。评估该技术在整个手术过程中维持稳定MMF的成功或失败情况。
50例患者中,27例(54%)使用楔状隙钢丝进行术中MMF,23例(46%)使用牙弓夹板进行术中MMF。放置楔状隙钢丝MMF的平均时间(2.51分钟)显著(P <.001)少于放置牙弓夹板MMF的平均时间(25.47分钟)。在楔状隙钢丝MMF组的27例患者中,有24例(89%)在固定期间MMF质量被判定为稳定;在牙弓夹板组的23例患者中,有22例(96%)被判定为稳定。这种差异不显著(P =.61)。
放置楔状隙钢丝的时间比牙弓夹板显著更短,并且在修复下颌骨骨折期间,它们提供了一种可靠的术中MMF形式。对于术中MMF,与牙弓夹板相比,楔状隙钢丝通过减少应用时间具有显著优势。此外,可以通过减少MMF所需钢丝数量来降低楔状隙钢丝的疾病传播风险。