Lucio LE, Uribe CA, Hernández JF, Tovar BC

Language: Spanish
References: 32
Page: 25-31
PDF size: 227.61 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Heading to the troublesome treatment of subcondylar fractures actually existing and to the different criteria towards its management, this paper has a meaning to mention depending on it’s anatomical location and it’s displacement to perform a less complex approach that can give us a better access to our surgical field and an easier reduction of the osseous fragments. According to the regularly used surgical techniques the complications more oftenly found are facial nerve damage, maloclutions and post-surgical edema. It’s because of this that we recommend the transparotid approach as an alternative to reduction and fixation of subcondilar fracture which is based on the excellent results that we have had. It’s a safer and easier technique.

REFERENCES

1. Miranda E, Uribe A. Abordaje retroauricular en forma de E para ATM, Revista de especialidades médico quirúrgicas. 2006: 11 (2).

2. Villarreal MP. Mandibular condyle fractures: determinats of treatment and outcomes. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 155-163.

3. Yi CK. Mandibular or maxillary fractures, it may also be used for subcondylar fractures to avoid intermaxillary: Clinical evaluation of 3 types of plate osteosynthesis for fixation of condylar neck fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59: 734-737.

4. Devlin MF. Open reduction and internal fixation of fractured mandibular condyles by a retromandibular approach: surgical morbidity and informed consent. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2002; 40: 23-25.

5. Habel G. A transcoronoidal approach of fractures of the condylar neck. J Cranio-Max-Fac Surg 1969; 18: 348-351. Brit J Oral Surg 1990; 7: 31-39.

6. Moos KF. Consensus conference. Open or closed management of condylar fractures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998; 27: 243.

7. Santler G. Fractures of the condylar process: surgical versus non surgical treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999; 57: 392- 397.

8. Zide MF. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures. Discussion. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2001; 59: 375-376.

9. Edward E. Condylar Process Fractures: Biological Considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 115-134.

10. Wilson A. Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2005; 43: 57-60.

11. Andersson J. Unilateral mandibular condylar fractures: a 31- year-follow-up of non-surgical treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 36: 310-314.

12. Vesnaver A. The periauricular transparotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2005; 33: 169-179.

13. Cascone P. Rigid versus semirigid fixation for condylar fracture: experience with the external fixation system. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66: 265-271.

14. Block P. Term outcomes after treatment of condylar fracture by intraoral access: A functional and radiologic assessment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2007; 65: 1470-1476.

15. Trost O. High cervical transmasseteric anteroparotid approachfor open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fracture. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008; 66: 201-204.

16. Andreasen JO. A systematic review of prophylactic antibiotics in the surgical treatment of maxillofacial fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64: 1664-1668.

17. Wilson AW. Transmasseteric antero-parotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2005; 43, 57-60.

18. Vesnaver A. The periauricular transparotid approach for open reduction and internal fixation of condylar fractures. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2005; 33, 169-179.

19. Manisali M. Retromandibular approach to the mandibular condyle: a clinical and cadaveric study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 32: 253-256.

20. Anand R. Nasotracheal intubation to facilitate surgical access in parotid surgery. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2007; 45: 684-685.

21. Tominaga, Kazuhiro. Biomechanical evaluation of different types of rigid internal fixation techniques for subcondylar fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2006; 64: 1510-1516.

22. Goto A. Tratamento cirúrgico das fraturas subcondilares: avaliação da abordagem retromandibular de hinds. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2007; 34 (5): 303-309.

23. Edward E III. Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005; 63: 115-134.

24. Alper A. Biomechanical comparison of plating techniques for fractures of the mandibular condyle. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2007; 45: 145-149.

25. Rutges JPHJ. Functional results after conservative treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2007; 45: 30-34.

26. Schön R. Follow-up of condylar fractures of the mandible in 8 patients at 18 months after transoral endoscopicassisted open treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2003; 61: 49-54.

27. Slavkin HC. Comparison, communication, and craniofacial, orodental trauma: Opportunities Abound JADA 2000; 31 (IV): 507-510.

28. Pasha R. Otolaringology, Head and Neck Surgery. USA. Singular/Thomson learning. p 450.

29. Moore UJ. Principles of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 5ta ed. Blackwell Science. 2001. p. 194.

30. Eckelt U. Open versus closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. A prospective randomized multi-centre study. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2006; 34: 306-314.

31. Schneider M. Surgical treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle: A comparison of long-term result followings different approaches-functional, axiographical, and radiological findings. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2007; 35: 151-160.

32. Zachariades N. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: A review of 466 cases. Literature Review, reflections on treatment or and proposals. Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery 2006; 34: 421-432.