Sarracent PH, Guerra CO, Dawkins G, Peñón VPA

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 496-504
PDF size: 75.82 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: controversy exists regarding the management of mandibular condyle fractures, but the open approach with rigid fixation has been successful. A study was done about Retromandibular transparotideal approach with rigid fixation in subcondylar fractures.
Objective: to characterize demographically the studied sample, to describe the obtained clinical and radiographical results, to identify associated accidents and complications.
Material and methods: a case series study was carried out in 25 patients of the total of patients with subcondylar fractures diagnosis who attended to the Maxillofacial Departament, University Hospital "Miguel Enríquez", between 2002-2011. The sample was subjected to surgical treatment by means of retromandibular approach and rigid fixation. The studied variables were: demographical, clinical and radiographical variables; accidents and complications. The patients were evaluated chronologically. Results: patients among 15-24 years (40%), masculine sex (80%), unilateral fractures (80%), and high subcondylar (40%) prevailed. In 7 days the average value of maximum buccal opening was 39 mm and 3 mm of deflexion. 100% of the cases registered anatomical reduction.
Conclusions: the transparotideal retromandibular approach with rigid fixation is an appropriate method of treatment of sub-condylar fractures with excellent aesthetic and functional results.

REFERENCES

1. Bindra S, Choudhary K. Management of mandibular sub condylar and condylar fractures using retromandibular approach and assessment of associated surgical complications. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011; 10(3):361-4.

2. Niezen ET, Bos RRM, De Bont LGM, Stegenga B, Dijkstra PU. Complaints related to mandibular function impairment after closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39:660-5.

3. Gupta M, Iyer N, Das D. Analysis of different treatment protocols for fractures of condylar process of mandible. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 70:83-91.

4. Ebenezer V, Ramalingam B. Comparison of approaches for the rigid fixation of sub-condylar fractures. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2011; 10(1):38-44.

5. Ellis E, Throckmorton GS, Palmieri C. Open treatment of condylar process fractures: assessment of adequacy of repositioning and maintenance of stability. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 58(1):27-34.

6. Patil R, Gudi S. Management of subcondylar fractures through intraoral approach with rigid internal fixation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 10(3):209-15.

7. Lutz JC, Clavert P, Wolfram-Gabel R, Wilk A, Kahn JL. Is the high submandibular transmasseteric approach to the mandibular condyle safe for the inferior buccal branch? Surg Radiol Anat . 2010; 32(10):963-9.

8. Lauer G, Pradel W. Resorbable triangular plate for osteosynthesis of fractures of the condylar neck. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 48: 532-5.

9. Pilling E, Eckelt U. Comparative evaluation of ten different condylar base fracture osteosynthesis techniques. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 48: 527-31.

10. Meng FW. Use of a temporary screw for alignment and fixation of sagital mandibular condylar fractures with lateral screws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010; 39: 548.

11. Jones S, Sugar A. Retrieval of the displaced condylar fragment with a screw: simple method of reduction and stabilization of high and intracapsular condylar fractures. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011; 49: 58-61.