Transoral versus extraoral approach for mandibular angle fractures: A comparative study

Liposomal Bupivacaine Suspension Can Reduce the Length of Stay of Patients Undergoing Open Reduction and Internal Fixation of Mandibular Fracture

BACKGROUND

Poorly controlled postoperative pain results in prolonged length of stay (LOS). The use of liposome bupivacaine injectable suspension (LB) for postoperative pain control is a relatively recent practice.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the following. In patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular fracture(s), does the use of LB reduce LOS compared with regular bupivacaine?

STUDY DESIGN, SETTING, SAMPLE

We implemented a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with mandibular fracture(s) presented to Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, GA, from January 2021 to January 2022. Adult patients diagnosed with 1 or more isolated mandibular fracture(s) and treated by open reduction and internal fixation were included. We excluded patients with non-isolated mandibular fracture(s), isolated condyle, infected, previously treated fractures, and documented allergy to amide local anesthetics and/or its preservatives.

PREDICTOR/EXPOSURE/INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

Primary predictor variable was local anesthetic (regular bupivacaine alone or LB/regular bupivacaine).

MAIN OUTCOME VARIABLE(S)

Primary outcome variable was LOS, defined as the number of days from surgical procedure until discharge. Secondary outcome variables were number of opioid prescription refill(s) and postoperative pain at discharge, determined with visual analogue scale.

COVARIATES

The covariates were Demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, smoking, alcohol exposure, illicit drug use, etiology, location, laterality, number of fracture(s), surgical approach, and method of maxillomandibular fixation.

ANALYSES

Univariate and bivariate analyses were calculated. Statistical significance was P < .05.

RESULTS

Sixty-two subjects met the inclusion criteria (31 subjects in each group). The mean ages in LB/regular bupivacaine and regular bupivacaine alone groups were 33.3 (±12) and 35.1 (±15.6), respectively (P = .94), the mean LOS in days was 0.23 (±0.44) in LB/regular bupivacaine and 1.48 (±1.77) in regular bupivacaine alone (P= < .001), and the mean VAS pain scores for LB/regular bupivacaine and regular bupivacaine alone groups were 0.53 (±1.07) and 1.87 (±2.66), respectively (P = .02). Mean number of opioid prescription refill(s) was 0 in LB/regular bupivacaine and 1 in regular bupivacaine alone group, respectively (P = .01).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The use of LB/regular bupivacaine for mandibular fracture(s) results in decrease in LOS and number of opioid refills compared to regular bupivacaine alone.

Infection Rates of an Intraoral Versus Extraoral Approach to Mandibular Fracture Repairs are Equal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This study investigates whether the intraoral approach to mandibular open reduction and internal fixation, through exposure to the oral cavity's microbiome, results in higher infection rates compared to the extraoral approach, thus addressing a critical public health concern, potentially offering an opportunity to reduce health-care costs, and aiming to guide effective clinical practice.

METHODS

In this systematic review with meta-analyses, a review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using Embase and PubMed for articles published between 1989 and 2023. Inclusion criteria targeted studies on open reduction and internal fixation mandibular fractures comparing intraoral and extraoral approaches and reporting infection rates. Exclusion criteria eliminated non-English articles, case reports, and studies with insufficient approach-specific data. The primary outcome was the postoperative infection rate, with surgical approach as the predictor. Covariates such as age, sex, diabetes, and smoking status were included when reported. Data were analyzed using R software, employing random-effects models due to anticipated heterogeneity (I2 statistics).

RESULTS

From 61 studies, 11 provided direct comparisons involving 1,317 patients-937 intraoral and 380 extraoral. Infection rates were 5.9% for intraoral and 10% for extraoral approaches. Pooled relative risk was 0.94 [95% confidence interval, 0.63, 1.39], suggesting no significant risk difference. Prevalence of infections was estimated at 9% for intraoral and 6.1% for extraoral procedures, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 84% for intraoral and 56% for extraoral).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis found no significant difference in infection rates between the two approaches. There is opportunity to expand on reporting complication rates comparing the various approaches to mandibular fixation. Until these data are presented, surgeon preference may dictate the operative approach to expose the mandible for reduction and fixation.

Mandible Angle Resection with the Retroauricular Approach

Square-shaped and large moon-shaped faces are commonly observed in Asians, and the contour of the mandible is associated with the shape of the lower part of the face. Mandible contouring surgery is performed to create a softer impression for East Asians. Currently, most surgeries are performed using an intraoral approach. External approaches have not been cosmetically attempted because of possible damage to the facial nerve and visible scarring and have been limited to mandible bone fracture reduction. This study included 42 patients who underwent mandibular angle reduction via classical intraoral incision and retroauricular incision between April 2019 and October 2021. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale and Visual Analog Scale. Surgery was successful in all cases, with no significant complications. An appropriate mandibular contour was achieved postoperatively. All patients were satisfied with the outcome. Some patients experienced short-term complications, such as hematoma and wound disruption of the skin above the incision line. However, these improved within 3 weeks, and no serious long-term complications were observed. Mandible angle resection with the retroauricular approach is a promising alternative for patients, allowing speedy recovery and the resumption of routine daily life.

One miniplate versus two miniplates in the fixation of mandibular angle fractures. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes after using one miniplate fixation in the external oblique ridge versus two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Cochrane Library database was performed (last search date: 04 February 2022) according to the PRISMA guidelines. The research question was addressed using the PICO criteria. Only comparative studies between the two techniques were included. Random-effects model meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies, comprising a total of 1667 patients, 846 undergoing one miniplate fixation and 854 undergoing two miniplate fixation for mandibular angle fractures were identified. No statistically significant differences were observed regarding surgical site infection (odds ratio [OR]= 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.69] - [1.28], p = 0.68, I²=0.00%), post-operative malocclusion (OR= 0.97, 95% CI: [0.53] - [1.18], p = 0.25, I²=0.00%), post-operative neurosensory dysfunction (OR= 0.67, 95% CI: [0.37] - [1.22], p = 0.19, I²=73.93%), pseudoarthrosis formation (OR=0.90, 95% CI: [0.58] - [(1.39], p = 0.63, I²=0.00%). Wound dehiscence was marginally less common in the one miniplate group (OR=0.52, 95% CI: [0.28] - [0.98], p = 0.04, I²=54.34%). The probability of scarring formation (OR=0.13, 95% CI: [0.05] - [0.32], p = 0.00, I²=0.00%) and hardware failure (OR=0.36, 95% CI [0.21] - [0.62], p = 0.00, I²=29.33%) were statistically significantly higher in the two miniplates arm.

CONCLUSION

One miniplate fixation and two miniplates fixation of mandibular angle fractures have similar results regarding post operative infection, malocclusion, neurosensory dysfunction and pseudoarthrosis formation while wound dehiscence, hardware failure and scarring seem to be more common when two miniplates are used as a fixation technique.

Medial Epicanthoplasty With the Classic and Modified Skin Redraping Method: A Retrospective Case Control Study

ABSTRACT

The skin redraping method for medial epicanthoplasty is characterized by some shortcomings which warrants modification. In this study, clinical data of 193 patients who underwent medial epichanthoplasty by the modified skin redraping technique or the classic skin redraping technique were reviewed retrospectively. The patients underwent operation between May 2018 and June 2020 and were followed up for not less than 6 months. Interepicanthal distance , interpupillary distance, patient satisfaction, and postoperative complications were evaluated. In terms of interepicanthal distance/interpupillary distance ratio (P > 0.05) and satisfaction score (P = 0.759), the modified skin redraping technique and the classic skin redraping technique were similar. In the classic skin redraping group, there were 3 cases of visible scarring in the lower eyelid, corresponding to significantly more cases than in the modified skin redraping group (n = 0, P < 0.001). There were more out-fold cases in the modified skin redraping group (76/90) than in the classic skin redraping group (17/88) (P < 0.001). Utilizing the modified skin redraping medial epicanthoplasty can prevent medial hooding of the upper eyelid, reduce the probability of visible scarring, and produce more out-fold with concurrent double eyelidplasty compared with classic skin redraping epicanthoplasty.Level of evidence: IV.

A Comparative Evaluation of Transbuccal versus Transoral Approach for the Management of Mandibular Angle Fractures: A Prospective, Clinical, and Radiographic Study

INTRODUCTION

In the facial bones, the angle of the mandible is the common site of fractures. Furthermore, it is the site with the highest number of complications after fracture and hence needs an efficient fixation. The right approach is still debatable for the angle fractures. In the light of these factors, we evaluated the transoral and the transbuccal approaches for the treatment of fractures at the angle of the mandible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients were equally divided into two groups of transoral and transbuccal methods. The parameters such as ease of access, surgical time, occlusion, postsurgical infection, fracture gaps, scarring, and complications were noted, and the values that were compared were statistically analyzed. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

No significant variations were seen in the variables such as ease of access, occlusion, postsurgical infection, and fracture gaps. Surgical time was significantly less for the transoral method. Negligible scarring was noted in the transbuccal method.

CONCLUSION

Although both the methods were comparable, the transbuccal approach was more efficient for the mandibular angular fracture treatment.

Does Surgical Specialty Impact Mandibular Fracture Outcomes?

PURPOSE

Maxillofacial trauma is treated by two medical specialties, plastic surgery (PRS) and otolaryngology (ENT). Differences in training exposure and practice patterns exist between specialties, but their respective outcomes have never been compared.

METHODS

Mandible fracture data were reviewed from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program from 2005 to 2016. Demographics variables, repair types, and adverse outcomes were compared between PRS and ENT.

RESULTS

From 2005 to 2016, one thousand two hundred eighty-two cases were identified with 756 cases managed by ENT and 526 cases managed by PRS. Mean patient age was 34.6 years for both specialties (P = 0.95). Patient demographics between both cohorts were not statistically different except for higher rates of hypertension among ENT patients (10.2% for ENT versus 6.7% for PRS, P = 0.027) and higher rates of smoking history among PRS patients (46.8% versus 52.3%, P = 0.055). Mean operative time (131.3 versus 124.0 min, P = 0.090) had a trend toward being longer for ENT and mean length of stay (1.3 versus 2.0, P = 0.002) was significantly longer for PRS. Despite a greater proportion of high ASA class patients in the ENT group (P = 0.012) and patients with dirty/infected wounds in the PRS group (P = 0.013), there were no significant differences in 30-day readmission rates, 30-day reoperation rates, or wound infection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant differences in 30-day readmission rates, reoperation rates, or wound infection rates for mandible fracture management exist between specialties. Despite differences in training between PRS and ENT, both specialties have comparable perioperative outcomes for mandible fracture management.

Photoelastic analysis of conventional and locking system for treatment of mandibular angle fractures with a single plate

Background

This photoelastic analysis evaluated stress distribution in different osteosynthesis systems, conventional and locking, used for treatment of mandibular angle fractures with a single plate.

Material and Methods

Angle fractures were simulated in mandibles made of photoelastic resin. Following Champy’s method, plate osteosynthesis was performed. The samples were divided into five groups: Group 1, non-fractured mandible; Group 2, two screws were installed in each segment using a conventional system; Group 3, two screws were installed in each segment using a locking system; Group 4, three screws were installed in the proximal segment and four screws in the distal segment using a conventional plate; Group 5, three screws were installed in the proximal segment and four screws in the distal segment using a locking plate. In an universal testing machine coupled to a polariscope, a load was applied to the first molar 10 times. The 50 images were randomly numbered and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively by two raters.

Results

The locking system promoted better stress distribution along the osteosynthesis. The locking system reduced stress magnitude in the distal segment, with a significant between-group difference (P≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

The locking plate/screw system can distribute stress more evenly throughout the osteosynthesis, especially when long seven-hole plates are used.

Key words:Internal fracture fixation, osteosynthesis, mandibular fracture, bone plates.

Transbuccal Approach in Management of Mandible Angle Fracture

With expanding dimensions and an eminent member of trauma team many Ear Nose Throat specialists are exposed to Oro-maxillofacial trauma. Mandibular angle is a difficult region to operate owing to its unique anatomy. Anglefractures form around 30-40% of the mandibular fracture. Open reduction and internal plating is the management of choice in most angle fractures and various approaches have been described in literature. We conducted a study of trans-buccal approach for management of mandibular angle fractures. It was a non-randomised observational study. 57 patients of mandible angle fractures were included in the study. The ORIF was done in these pts under general anaesthesia after careful surgical planning using trans-buccal approach. This approach included an intraoral exposure with stab incision for the trans-buccal passage of drill and screw diver. Out of 57 cases in our study 33 were males and 24 were females. 23/57 patients were in age group 25-35 years whereas 19/57 patients were in age group 15-25 years All 57 patients had good fracture healing. Occlusion dysfunction was seen in only 1 case. Infection was seen 3 cases while intraoral exposure of plates occurred in 2 cases. Average mouth opening was 43.3 mm at 6 weeks with progressive improvement on follow up. Extraoral scar healed well with very good cosmesis in all cases. We strongly suggest the use of transbuccal approach for ORIF in mandibular angle fractures owing to the ease of procedure, comfort of surgeon and less complication rate.

Complications and Reoperations in Mandibular Angle Fractures

IMPORTANCE

Mandible angle fractures can be repaired in a variety of ways, with no consensus on the outcomes of complications and reoperation rates.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze patient, injury, and surgical factors, including approach to the angle and plating technique, associated with postoperative complications, as well as the rate of reoperation with regard to mandible angle fractures.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Retrospective cohort study analyzing the surgical outcomes of patients with mandible angle fractures between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015, who underwent open reduction and internal fixation. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had 3 or less mandible fractures with 1 involving the mandibular angle, and had adequate follow-up data. Patients with comminuted angle fractures, bilateral angle fractures, and multiple surgical approaches were excluded. A total of 135 patients were included in the study. All procedures were conducted at a single, large academic hospital located in an urban setting.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Major complications and reoperation rates. Major complications included in this study were nonunion, malunion, severe malocclusion, severe infection, and exposed hardware.

RESULTS

Of 135 patients 113 (83.7%) were men; median age was 29 years (range, 18-82 years). Eighty-seven patients (64.4%) underwent the transcervical approach and 48 patients (35.6%) received the transoral approach. Fifteen (17.2%) patients in the transcervical group and 9 (18.8%) patients in the transoral group experienced major complications (difference, 1%; 95% CI, -8% to 10%). Thirteen (14.9%) patients in the transcervical group and 8 (16.7%) patients in the transoral group underwent reoperations (difference, 2%; 95% CI, -13% to 17%). Active smoking had a significant effect on the rate of major complications (odds ratio, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.07 to 15.34; P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

During repair of noncomminuted mandibular angle fractures, both of the commonly used approaches-transcervical and transoral-can be used during treatment with equal rates of complication and risk of reoperation. For a patient undergoing surgery for mandibular angle fracture, smoking status is more likely to predict surgical outcomes rather than how the surgeon chooses to approach and fixate the fracture.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Transoral approach alone in single miniplate osteosynthesis of angle fracture - our experience

Aim:

The aim of this study was to determine the outcome of transoral approach alone to treat the mandibular angle fracture using single 2.0 mm miniplate.

Materials and Methods:

In this study, 28 patients were included and treated with 2.0 mm single miniplate osteosynthesis at upper border along Champy's line of osteosynthesis using transoral approach alone.

Results:

All the cases were treated successfully with 2.0 mm single miniplate with common complications such as infection (two cases) and plate exposure (one case) in a total of two cases.

Conclusion:

Use of single miniplates by transoral approach alone for superior border osteosynthesis is effective and simple approach without need of extra armamentarium.

Transbuccal versus transoral approach for management of mandibular angle fractures: a prospective, clinical and radiographic study

Objectives

We compared the transbuccal and transoral approaches in the management of mandibular angle fractures.

Materials and Methods

Sixty patients with mandibular angle fractures were randomly divided into two equal groups (A, transoral approach; group B, transbuccal approach) who received fracture reduction using a single 2.5 mm 4 holed miniplate with a bar using either of the two approaches. Intraoperatively, the surgical time and the ease of surgical assess for fixation were noted. Patients were followed at 1 week, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively and evaluated clinically for post-surgical complications like scarring, infection, postoperative occlusal discrepancy, malunion, and non-union. Radiographically, the interpretation of fracture reduction was also performed by studying the fracture gap following reduction using orthopantomogram tracing. The data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

No significant difference was seen between the two groups for variables like surgical time and ease of fixation. Radiographic interpretation of fracture reduction revealed statistical significance for group B from points B to D as compared to group A. No cases of malunion/non-union were noted. A single case of hypertrophic scar formation was noted in group B at 6 months postsurgery. Infection was noted in 2 patients in group B compared to 6 patients in group A. There was significantly more occlusal discrepancy in group A compared to group B at 1 week postoperatively, but no long standing discrepancy was noted in either group at the 6 months follow-up.

Conclusion

The transbuccal approach was superior to the transoral approach with regard to radiographic reduction of the fracture gap, inconspicuous external scarring, and fewer postoperative complications. We preferred the transbuccal approach due to ease of use, minimal requirement for plate bending, and facilitation of plate placement in the neutral mid-point area of the mandible.