Chrcanovic Bruno Ramos
Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.
Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2013 Jun;17(2):95-104. doi: 10.1007/s10006-012-0349-2. Epub 2012 Jul 29.
The purpose of the study was to review the literature regarding the evolution of current thoughts on management of comminuted mandibular fractures (CMFs).
An electronic search in PubMed was undertaken in May 2012. The titles and abstracts from these results were read to identify studies within the selection criteria. Eligibility criteria included studies published in English or German reporting clinical series of CMFs.
The search strategy initially identified 409 studies. Fifteen studies were identified without repetition within the selection criteria. One case report article showing significance in the development of treatment techniques was included. Additional hand-searching yielded five additional papers. Thus, a total of 21 studies were included.
Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in cases of CMFs are indicated in (a) severe injuries with significant displacement to allow restoration of pretraumatic anatomic relationships, (b) in the edentulous and semi-dentate patient, who may benefit from ORIF of CMFs when stable occlusal relationships are absent, and (c) in cases with multiple fractures of the midface, in which the mandible has to serve as a guide to reposition the midfacial bones. However, there is still a place for closed reduction/conservative treatment (CTR). ORIF in CMFs is not indicated in cases of minimally displaced comminuted fractures that could easily and adequately be treated with CTR. If the surgical team is not well versed in the nuances of rigid internal fixation, or the necessary equipment is not available, it is far better to do simple CTR. However, it would be more reasonable to refer the patient to a hospital that can provide means of ORIF in cases of clear indication of its use in CMFs. In cases where ORIF is indicated, stabilization by compression or any other form of load-sharing osteosynthesis is obviously contraindicated because small fragments cannot be compressed and are not capable of sharing loads. Thus, the ORIF of CMFs is best performed using load-bearing osteosynthesis; most experience has been gained with 2.7-mm reconstruction plates. External pin fixation could be used in cases when there is so much comminution, soft tissue disruption (mostly gunshot wounds), and there are inadequate teeth on either side of the comminuted fracture to control the spatial relationship of the remaining mandibular fragments with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF).
本研究旨在回顾有关粉碎性下颌骨骨折(CMFs)治疗理念演变的文献。
2012年5月在PubMed上进行了电子检索。阅读这些结果的标题和摘要,以确定符合选择标准的研究。入选标准包括以英文或德文发表的关于CMFs临床系列的研究。
检索策略最初识别出409项研究。在选择标准内无重复地确定了15项研究。纳入了一篇显示在治疗技术发展中具有重要意义的病例报告文章。进一步的手工检索又获得了5篇论文。因此,共纳入21项研究。
CMFs病例的切开复位内固定(ORIF)适用于以下情况:(a)严重损伤且移位明显,以恢复创伤前的解剖关系;(b)无牙和半牙列患者,当缺乏稳定的咬合关系时,可能从CMFs的ORIF中获益;(c)面中部多处骨折的病例,其中下颌骨必须作为重新定位面中部骨骼的导向。然而,闭合复位/保守治疗(CTR)仍有其应用空间。对于轻度移位的粉碎性骨折,若能用CTR轻松且充分地治疗,则不适合行CMFs的ORIF。如果手术团队不熟悉坚固内固定的细微差别,或没有必要的设备,那么进行简单的CTR要好得多。然而,在CMFs明确有ORIF指征的情况下,将患者转诊至能提供ORIF手段的医院会更合理。在有ORIF指征的情况下,显然禁忌通过加压或任何其他形式的负载分担骨合成进行固定,因为小骨折块无法加压且不能分担负荷。因此,CMFs的ORIF最好采用承重骨合成;使用2.7毫米重建钢板积累的经验最多。当粉碎严重、软组织损伤(主要是枪伤)且粉碎性骨折两侧牙齿不足,无法通过颌间固定(MMF)控制剩余下颌骨骨折块的空间关系时,可采用外固定针固定。