Devireddy Sathya Kumar, Kishore Kumar R V, Gali Rajasekhar, Kanubaddy Sridhar Reddy, Dasari Mallikarjuna Rao, Akheel Mohammad
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Narayana Dental College & Hospital, Chintareddypalem, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Indian J Plast Surg. 2014 Sep-Dec;47(3):354-61. doi: 10.4103/0970-0358.146590.
Mandibular fractures represent approximately two-thirds of all the maxillofacial fractures (nearly 70%) out of which fractures of mandibular angle represent for 26-35%.
The aim of this study is to compare the transoral and extraoral (submandibular) approaches for fixation of mandibular angle fractures.
The objectives of the following study are to evaluate ease of accessibility, time taken for the procedure, ease of anatomic reduction and complications.
A prospective study was carried out in 30 patients reporting to the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh during the period of months from November 2011 to August 2013 who were randomly divided in two groups based on computer generated simple randomization chart. Group I patients underwent transoral reduction and fixation and Group II patients underwent extraoral reduction and fixation. The ease of accessibility was analysed by visual analogue scale by the operating surgeon, time taken from incision to closure with digital clock, difficulty level index of surgeon based on the time taken for the procedure and approach related complications.
The ease of accessibility in Group I was good in 53.3% while in Group II patients approached extraorally it was good in 86.7%. Group I patients approached transorally showed a mean of 49.7 min while that of Group II patients approached extraorally showed a mean of 73.4 min. Group I had a minimum difficulty level index in 60%, moderate difficulty level in 33.3% and severe difficulty level in 6.7% while Group II had a minimum and moderate difficulty level in 46.7% and severe difficulty level in 6.7%. There was 1 (6.7%) complication reported in each group.
The statistical analysis of this study concludes that fracture line starting anterior to mandibular third molar and ending at anteroinferior border of the insertion of the masseter muscle or posterior body of mandible can be approached transorally. Fracture line starting posterior or distal to the third molar or posterior to the insertion of the masseter muscle to the angle of the mandible or fracture line extending high in the ramus, extraoral approach provides a better choice for reduction and fixation of the fractured segments with restoration of anatomical and functional occlusion.
下颌骨骨折约占所有颌面骨折的三分之二(近70%),其中下颌角骨折占26 - 35%。
本研究旨在比较经口内和口外(颌下)入路治疗下颌角骨折的固定效果。
本研究的目标是评估手术入路的难易程度、手术所需时间、解剖复位的难易程度以及并发症情况。
对2011年11月至2013年8月期间到印度安得拉邦内洛尔市纳拉亚纳牙科学院和医院口腔颌面外科就诊的30例患者进行前瞻性研究。根据计算机生成的简单随机化图表将患者随机分为两组。第一组患者采用经口内复位固定,第二组患者采用口外复位固定。由手术医生通过视觉模拟量表分析手术入路的难易程度,用数字时钟记录从切口到缝合的时间,根据手术所需时间和入路相关并发症确定手术医生的难度指数。
第一组经口内入路的患者中,53.3%的手术入路难易程度良好;第二组口外入路的患者中,86.7%的手术入路难易程度良好。第一组经口内入路的患者平均手术时间为49.7分钟,第二组口外入路的患者平均手术时间为73.4分钟。第一组60%的患者难度指数最小,33.3%的患者难度适中,6.7%的患者难度较大;第二组46.7%的患者难度最小和适中,6.7% 的患者难度较大。每组均报告有1例(6.7%)并发症。
本研究的统计分析得出结论,对于骨折线起始于下颌第三磨牙前方并止于咬肌附着的前下缘或下颌骨体后部的情况,可采用经口内入路。对于骨折线起始于第三磨牙后方或远中、咬肌附着后方至下颌角或骨折线延伸至升支较高部位的情况,口外入路为骨折段的复位和固定以及恢复解剖和功能咬合提供了更好的选择。