Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Prosthetics and Traumatology, School of Dentistry, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Sao Paulo, Brazil; School of Dentistry, Centro Universitário Das Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas (FMU), Sao Paulo, Brazil.
School of Dentistry, Centro Universitário Das Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas (FMU), Sao Paulo, Brazil.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2021 Aug;49(8):749-757. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.02.019. Epub 2021 Feb 23.
The aim of the study was to compare open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and endoscopic open reduction with internal fixation (EORIF) of condylar fractures (CF) in adults in terms of reducing both needing of reoperation and/or facial nerve injury. An electronic search was undertaken (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library). The inclusion criteria were full text, published from their inception to June 2020, clinical trials, randomized or not, and retrospective studies, that compared ORIF and EORIF. The estimates of an intervention were expressed as the risk ratio (RR). From the 1338 articles found, 5 publications were included. There was no statistically significant difference between ORIF and EORIF regarding needing of reoperation (RR = 2.46, p = 0.42) or facial nerve injury (RR = 0.45, p = 0.14). Meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference between open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and endoscopic open reduction with internal fixation (EORIF) of condylar fractures (CF) regarding facial nerve injury risk or need for reoperation.
本研究旨在比较成人髁突骨折（CF）切开复位内固定（ORIF）和内镜下切开复位内固定（EORIF）在减少再次手术和/或面神经损伤方面的效果。我们进行了电子检索（PubMed/MEDLINE、Web of Science、SCOPUS 和 The Cochrane Library）。纳入标准为全文、自发表以来至 2020 年 6 月发表的临床试验、随机或非随机、回顾性研究，比较 ORIF 和 EORIF。干预措施的估计值表示为风险比（RR）。在 1338 篇文章中，有 5 篇符合纳入标准。ORIF 和 EORIF 之间在需要再次手术（RR=2.46，p=0.42）或面神经损伤（RR=0.45，p=0.14）方面无统计学差异。Meta 分析表明，在面神经损伤风险或再次手术需求方面，切开复位内固定（ORIF）和内镜下切开复位内固定（EORIF）治疗髁突骨折（CF）之间无差异。
