Treatment of low subcondylar fractures—a 5-year retrospective study

Leiser, Yoav; Peled, Micha; Braun, R.; Naaj, I. Abu-El

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2013.03.006

Cited by 30 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…12,16, All e-mails were sent within a period of 24 h. The authors of six (18%) studies replied. [29][30][31]33,38,52 Five RCTs, [42][43][44][45]51 13 CCTs, 12,25,28,29,32,[35][36][37]40,41,46,47,49 and 18 retrospective studies 16,[20][21][22][23][24]26,27,30,31,33,34,38,39,48,50,52,53 were included in the meta-analysis.…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…26,38,50 Two studies included diacapitular (intracapsular) MCFs only, 34,41 three studies included only subcondylar MCFs, 35,45,51 and one study included only condylar head and high condylar fractures. 37 The absence of head fractures was also mentioned, 31,43,49 as well as the absence of midface fractures, 16,43 maxillary fractures, 38 pan-facial fractures, 51 or any other facial fracture, 44,52 except for associated MFs. 44 One study assessed only patients younger than 14 years of age, 12 and another evaluated only patients in the age range of 20-40 years.…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24,32,33,38,47,50,53 The most prevalent associated MF was fracture of the symphysis/parasymphysis region, with 78.3% (227/290) of the reported associated MFs of known location. Fourteen studies reported the aetiology of the MCFs; traffic accident (including motor vehicle and bicycle accidents) was the most prevalent aetiology in 11 studies, 25,28,30,31,33,38,43,45,47,50,53 fall was the most prevalent aetiology in two studies, 26,52 and assault/altercation was the most prevalent in one study. 29 The maximum follow-up period varied between 3 months and 13 years.…”

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis

Chrcanovic

2015

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Description Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis

Chrcanovic

2015

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Leiser ve arkadaşları 31 37 subkondiler kırığı bulunan hastanın 20'sini konservatif yolla tedavi ederken, 10'una anteroparotid transmasseterik yaklaşımla cerrahi tedavi uygulamışlardır. Bu hastalardan konservatif yolla tedavi edilenlerden 5'inde (%18.5), cerrahi yolla tedavi edilenlerin ise 2'sinde (%20) postoperatif dönemde ağız açıklığında kısıtlama gözlenmiştir.…”

Section: Komplikasyonlarunclassified

“…Bu hastalardan konservatif yolla tedavi edilenlerden 5'inde (%18.5), cerrahi yolla tedavi edilenlerin ise 2'sinde (%20) postoperatif dönemde ağız açıklığında kısıtlama gözlenmiştir. Ek olarak, anteroparotid transmasseterik yaklaşımla cerrahi tedavi uygulanan hastaların hiçbirinde fasiyal sinir hasarına rastlanmamıştır 31 .…”

Section: Komplikasyonlarunclassified

Mandibular Kondil Kırıkları ve Tedavi Yöntemleri

Kisa¹,

Tatlı²,

Kürkçü³

2014

Arşiv Kaynak Tarama Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maxillofacial injuries are most commonly associated with falls, motor and vehicle accidents, sportsrelated trauma, and interpersonal violence. The complexity of mandibular condyle region and its anatomic proximity to other craniofacial structures complicate diagnosis and treatment. Thus, treatment approaches of mandibular condyle fracture are still controversial. In the literature, different success rates are reported about observation versus treatment, closed reduction versus open reduction and fixation methods. In the present article, controversial issues related to mandibular condyle fractures were reviewed under the light of current literature. In conclusion, the simplest way that can be done with the least risk of complication should be chosen during treatment planning. In addition, current adjunctive treatment methods accelerating healing of fracture should be considered. Key words: Open reduction, closed reduction, fracture, mandibular condyle, temporomandibular joint. ÖZETÇene-yüz yaralanmaları en sık duşmeler, motorlu taşıt kazaları, sporla ilgili travma ve bireyler arası şiddetle ilişkilendirilir. Mandibular kondil bölgesinin karmaşıklığı ve bölgenin diğer kraniyofasiyal yapılara anatomik yakınlığı tanı ve tedaviyi zorlaştırmaktadır. Bu sebeple mandibular kondil kırıklarının tedavi yaklaşımları halen tartışmalıdır. Literatürde gözleme karşı tedavi, kapalı reduksiyona karşı açık reduksiyon ve fiksasyon metodlarıyla ilgili farklı başarı oranları bildirilmektedir. Bu makalede, mandibular kondil kırıkları ile ilgili tartışmalı hususlar güncel literatür ışığı altında derlenmiştir. Sonuç olarak; tedavi planlamasında en az komplikasyon riskiyle yapılabilecek en basit yol seçilmelidir. Ek olarak; kırık iyileşmesini hızlandıran güncel destekleyici tedavi yöntemleri göz önünde bulundurulmalıdır.

show abstract

Current Management of Subcondylar Fractures: A Systematic Review

Shikara

Bridgham

Ludeman

et al. 2023

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The aim of this study is to review the current literature on treatment of subcondylar fractures using traditional open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), and endoscopic open approaches.Data Sources. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP.Review Methods. A comprehensive database search was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All English-only texts published in the last 20 years with ≥10 patients were included. Studies that included patients <16 years old were excluded.Results. Thirty-two studies met the final inclusion criteria. Nine studies compared ORIF with closed reduction using MMF, 12 studies evaluated ORIF via different approaches, and 10 studies evaluated outcomes after endoscopic approaches. Five studies reported significant improvement in mouth opening with ORIF compared to closed reduction. In 1 study that recorded patient-reported outcomes measure (FACE-Q scale), quality of life scores and patient satisfaction were significantly higher in the ORIF group. Among the 10 studies that used the endoscopic approach, transient facial nerve injury ranged from 0% to 10%. Conclusion.Several studies report better mouth opening, dental occlusion, and functional outcomes after ORIF compared to closed reduction, while some found no significant difference. Endoscopic approaches provide ease of access to the condyle with a low incidence of facial nerve injury. However, limitations include special equipment, longer operative times, and a steep learning curve using an endoscope. This review provides surgeons with an overview of the current literature on subcondylar fractures to allow for an individualized management approach for each patient.

show abstract

Treatment of low subcondylar fractures—a 5-year retrospective study

Cited by 30 publications

References 28 publications

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis

Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis

Mandibular Kondil Kırıkları ve Tedavi Yöntemleri

Current Management of Subcondylar Fractures: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About