Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
com
Review
Abstract
Management of mandibular condylar fractures remains a source of ongoing controversy. While some condylar fractures can be managed
non-surgically, recognition of fracture patterns that require surgical intervention and selection of an appropriate operative procedure are
paramount to success in treating these injuries.The objective of this review is to appraise the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of
interventions that are used in the management of fractures of the mandibular condyle.
2009 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Trauma; Mandibular fractures; Condylar injuries; Systematic review
Methods
Search strategy
An electronic search of the literature directly relating to
condylar fracture management was conducted. The databases
examined were the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register,
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of
Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment database. Electronic searches were also
conducted of the National Library of Medicines (NLM)
PubMed, Ovid Medline database, Embase, Cumulative Index
to Nursing & Allied Health Literature [CINAHL] and Biosis
databases up to 2009.
Of 1081 studies and publications identified on the initial
search of all databases, 858 were excluded as they were not
directly relevant to the subject matter studied. The remaining 233 publications were examined and analysed for the
purposes of this review.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 113 3436219; fax: +44 113 3436264.
E-mail addresses: khalidabdelgalil@doctors.org.uk (K. Abdel-Galil),
rloukota@doctors.org.uk (R. Loukota).
1 Tel.: +44 113 3436219; fax: +44 113 3436264.
0266-4356/$ see front matter 2009 The British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.10.010
K. Abdel-Galil, R. Loukota / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 48 (2010) 520526
521
Operative techniques
522
K. Abdel-Galil, R. Loukota / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 48 (2010) 520526
Fig. 2. Existing level 1 and 2 evidence (ORIF: open reduction and internal fixation; CR: closed reduction; ENDO: endoscopic reduction and fixation).
Fig. 3. SORG classification: (1) high/condylar neck fracture; (2) low/condylar base fracture; (3) diacapitular fracture (with permission from Loukota et al.6 ).
K. Abdel-Galil, R. Loukota / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 48 (2010) 520526
523
Fig. 4. Osteosynthesis configurations for condylar base fractures (with permission, from: Pilling E, Eckelt U, Loukota R, Schneider K, Stadlinger B. Comparative
evaluation of ten different condylar base fracture osteosynthesis techniques).
524
K. Abdel-Galil, R. Loukota / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 48 (2010) 520526
and several deficiencies render its conclusions questionable. These include incomplete database exploration, flawed
statistical analysis, and lack of adherence to QUOROM
standards.18
In a prospective, randomised controlled multicentre trial
invovlving centres from North America, Europe and Asia,
patients with condylar neck fractures were randomised to
receive either open reduction and internal fixation using
an extraoral (submandibular, preauricular, retromandibular)
approach or a transoral endoscopic procedure. The primary
functional outcome measure was investigated using the asymmetric Helkimo dysfunction score at 812 weeks and 1
year after surgery.19 This showed that comparable functional
results were achieved after reduction and internal fixation
using either technique. A marginally better early cosmetic
outcome and fewer complications were the associated advantages of the transoral approach. Although these included a
reduced occurrence of facial nerve damage, this was not
supported by comparative statistical analyses.
Who should provide care?
K. Abdel-Galil, R. Loukota / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 48 (2010) 520526
525
Conclusion
A trend is emerging in the surgical literature confirming superior functional results following open reduction and internal
fixation of condylar fractures, where this is indicated. This
is supported by existing level I evidence. Endoscopic assistance, performed transorally, may also provide an alternative
means for treating a subset of these injuries, reducing visible
scar formation and possibly facial nerve damage.
There are still areas of condylar trauma surgery which
some surgeons consider controversial: condylar head fractures and displaced paediatric fractures. The use of resorbable
osteosynthesis techniques may be of benefit in both these
clinical settings; further research is needed in this field.
A SORG multicentre prospective randomised controlled
trial is planned to study the treatment of condylar head
fractures. Regarding paediatric injuries, promising outcomes
have been anecdotally reported following fixation of such
fractures in children as young as 6 years of age.
Conict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
References
Fig. 8. Post-operative radiograph of comminuted diacapitular fracture fixation using ultrasound activated resorbable osteosynthesis.
526
K. Abdel-Galil, R. Loukota / British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 48 (2010) 520526
24. Mannion CJ, Loukota RA. Endoscopically-assisted treatment of condylar fracturesexperiences following an educational course. Br J Oral
Maxillofac Surg, doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.08.022.
25. Carty MJ, Chan R, Huckman R, Snow D, Orgill DP. A detailed analysis
of the reduction mammaplasty learning curve: a statistical process model
for approaching surgical performance improvement. Plast Reconstr Surg
2009;124:70614.
26. Eastham JA. Do high-volume hospitals and surgeons provide better care
in urologic oncology? Urol Oncol 2009;27:41721.
27. Wang TS, Roman SA, Sosa JA. Predictors of outcomes following
pediatric thyroid and parathyroid surgery. Curr Opin Oncol 2009;21:
238.
28. Shervin N, Rubash HE, Katz JN. Orthopaedic procedure volume and
patient outcomes: a systematic literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res
2007;457:3541.
29. Ellis 3rd E, Moos KF, el-Attar A. Ten years of mandibular fractures:
an analysis of 2137 cases. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1985;59:
1209.
30. Worsaae N, Thorn JJ. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of unilateral
low subcondylar fractures: a clinical study of 52 cases. J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 1994;52:35360.
31. Ellis 3rd E, Simon P, Throckmorton GS. Occlusal results after open or
closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:2608.
32. Palmieri C, Ellis 3rd E, Throckmorton G. Mandibular motion after
closed and open treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar process
fractures. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1999;57:76475.
33. Ellis 3rd E, Throckmorton G. Facial symmetry after closed and open
treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2000;58:72930.
34. Landes CA, Day K, Lipphardt R, Sader R. Closed versus open operative treatment of nondisplaced diacapitular (Class VI) fractures. J Oral
Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:158694.
35. Nasser M, Fedorowicz Z, Ebadifar A. Management of the fractured edentulous atrophic mandible. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;4(January
(1)). CD006087.
36. Loukota RA, Neff A, Rasse M. Nomenclature/classification of fractures of the mandibular condylar head. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg,
doi:10.1016/j.bjoms.2009.08.036.