Wan Kenneth, Williamson Raymond A, Gebauer Dieter, Hird Kathryn
Oral-Maxillofacial Surgical Registrar, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Nov;70(11):2620-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.07.051. Epub 2012 Sep 6.
The study's purpose was to answer the following clinical question: in patients with mandibular angle fractures requiring open reduction and internal fixation, do those who have fixation screws inserted using a transbuccal approach compared with those with fixation screws inserted using a transoral approach have fewer complications after treatment? The investigators hypothesized that the transoral approach was associated with a higher risk of complications.
A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed in patients who had open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular angle fractures from 2008 to 2010 within Western Australia. Patients were divided into transbuccal and transoral groups and then further subdivided into groups with and without fixation failures (primary outcome variable) and statistically compared. Binary logistic regression was used to control for possible confounders, which included patient gender, age, a wisdom tooth within the fracture not extracted, dental caries, partial dentition, bilateral/unilateral fractures, and smoking.
In total 597 patients were in the study. Sixteen percent of patients in the transoral group had complications after treatment versus 10% in the transbuccal group. For the transoral technique, the odds of having fixation failure was 1.71 times greater than with the transbuccal technique (95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 2.93; P = .04). Incidences of all complication variables (hardware loosening/fracturing, wound dehiscence, secondary infection, surgery redo, nonunion/malunion of fracture, and removal of plate) were lower in the transbuccal group apart from plate fracture.
The transbuccal technique was associated with fewer complications after treatment compared with the transoral technique.
本研究旨在回答以下临床问题:在需要切开复位内固定的下颌角骨折患者中,经颊入路插入固定螺钉的患者与经口入路插入固定螺钉的患者相比,治疗后并发症是否更少?研究者假设经口入路与更高的并发症风险相关。
对2008年至2010年在西澳大利亚接受下颌角骨折切开复位内固定的患者进行了一项多中心回顾性队列研究。患者被分为经颊组和经口组,然后进一步细分为有和没有固定失败(主要结局变量)的组,并进行统计学比较。采用二元逻辑回归来控制可能的混杂因素,包括患者性别、年龄、骨折部位未拔除的智齿、龋齿、部分牙列、双侧/单侧骨折和吸烟。
共有597例患者纳入研究。经口组16%的患者治疗后出现并发症,而经颊组为10%。对于经口技术,固定失败的几率比经颊技术高1.71倍(95%置信区间,1.02至2.93;P = 0.04)。除钢板骨折外,经颊组所有并发症变量(硬件松动/断裂、伤口裂开、继发感染、手术重做、骨折不愈合/畸形愈合和钢板取出)的发生率均较低。
与经口技术相比,经颊技术治疗后并发症更少。