Gupta Saloni, Bansal Vishal, Mowar Apoorva, Purohit Jayendra, Bindal Mohit
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dental Science, Amargadh, Gujarat, India.
Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Jul-Dec;10(2):353-360. doi: 10.4103/ams.ams_28_20. Epub 2020 Dec 23.
Condylar fractures make up for an average of 17.5%-52% of all mandibular fractures. The aim of the present study was to compare the ease, success, and complications between retromandibular and periangular transmasseteric approaches when used for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures.
A total 20 cases with condylar fracture, ten each for retromandibular and periangular transmasseteric approach, were included in the study. Patients were evaluated at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Postoperative occlusion, maximum mouth opening, range of movement, facial nerve function, visibility, convenience of plating, and time taken for exposure, fixation, and closure were recorded. Incidence of complications such as wound dehiscence, wound infection, hematoma, sialocele formation, Frey's syndrome, and hypertrophic scars were also evaluated.
The mean exposure time in the retromandibular approach was 10 min 31 s and 9 min 17 s in the periangular transmasseteric approach. The incidence of facial nerve injury was 2 of 10 patients in the retromandibular group and 3 of 10 patients in the periangular transmasseteric group, all of which resolved within 6 months. The incidence of sialocoele was 2 of 10 in the retromandibular group. The time taken for exposure of the fracture site was statistically significant between the two approaches ( = 0.048) with longer time required for retromandibular approach.
It can be summarized that both the approaches are comparable and well suited for surgical management of condylar fractures. It was observed that in displaced condylar neck fractures, greater difficulty was experienced in the periangular transmasseteric approach than the retromandibular approach.
髁突骨折平均占所有下颌骨骨折的17.5%-52%。本研究的目的是比较下颌后入路和角周经咬肌入路在用于髁突骨折切开复位内固定时的操作难易程度、成功率及并发症情况。
本研究纳入20例髁突骨折患者,下颌后入路和角周经咬肌入路各10例。在术后1周、1个月、3个月和6个月对患者进行评估。记录术后咬合情况、最大张口度、活动范围、面神经功能、视野、钢板放置便利性以及暴露、固定和缝合所需时间。还评估了伤口裂开、伤口感染、血肿、涎瘘形成、Frey综合征和增生性瘢痕等并发症的发生率。
下颌后入路的平均暴露时间为10分31秒,角周经咬肌入路为9分17秒。下颌后入路组10例患者中有2例发生面神经损伤,角周经咬肌入路组10例患者中有3例发生面神经损伤,所有损伤均在6个月内恢复。下颌后入路组10例中有2例发生涎瘘。两种入路在骨折部位暴露时间上具有统计学差异(P = 0.048),下颌后入路所需时间更长。
可以总结出,两种入路具有可比性,都非常适合髁突骨折的手术治疗。观察发现,在移位的髁突颈部骨折中,角周经咬肌入路比下颌后入路遇到的困难更大。