Open versus closed treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fractures: a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of open and closed treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fractures using meta-analysis. METHODS: Databases as the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and Wanfang Data were searched from inception to September 25, 2015. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fractures were collected, and then selected on the basis of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were extracted from the included articles and meta analysis was performed using RevMan5.3. RESULTS: A total of 5 RCTs involving 197 patients were included and analyzed. The results of meta analysis showed that the maximal mouth opening (WMD: 5.60, 95% CI:4.42-6.77, P<0.01), protrusion (WMD:1.30, 95% CI:0.35-2.25, P<0.01) and sum of bilateral laterotrusions (WMD: 2.50, 95% CI:1.77-3.22, P<0.01) of open surgery were significantly higher than conservative treatment. The incidence of temporomandibular joint pain was significantly lower than conservative treatment (OR:0.14, 95% CI:0.04-0.43, P<0.01). There was no significant difference in incidence of malocclusion between the 2 groups (OR:0.33, 95% CI:0.07-1.46,P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conservative treatment, open surgery has significant advantages in improving mouth opening and mandibular movement, and reducing the incidence of joint pain.

Key words: Condyle fracture, Open Surgery, Conservative treatment, Meta analysis

CLC Number:

R782.4

HAN Xiao-dong, LIN Xiao-zhen, SHAO Xiao-jun, WANG Yan-yi, ZHANG Ming. Open versus closed treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fractures: a meta analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. China Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2016, 14(5): 455-460.

References

[1] Marker P, Nielsen A, Bastian HL. Fractures of the mandibular condyle. Part 2: results of treatment of 348 patients [J]. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2000, 38(5):422-426.
[2] De Riu G, Gamba U, Anghinoni M, et al. A comparison of open and closed treatment of condylar fractures: a change in philosophy [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2001, 30(5):384-389.
[3] Ellis E, Throckmorton GS. Treatment of mandibular condylar process fractures: biological considerations [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2005, 63(1): 115-134.
[4] Schneider M, Erasmus F, Gerlach KL, et al. Open reduction and internal fixation versus closed treatment and mandibulomaxillary fixation of fractures of the mandibular condylar process: a randomized, prospective, multicenter study with special evaluation of fracture level [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2008, 66(12): 2537-2544.
[5] Singh V, Bhagol A, Goel M, et al. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures: a prospective randomized study [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2010, 68(6): 1304-1309.
[6] Yang WG, Chen CT, Tsay PK, et al. Functional results of unilateral mandibular condylar process fractures after open and closed treatment [J]. J Trauma, 2002, 52(3):498-503.
[7] 段登辉, 张益. 下颌骨髁突骨折治疗的meta分析 [J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2006, 41(7): 388-390.
[8] 郭哲, 徐冰, 卢利. 下颌骨髁突骨折治疗的meta分析 [J]. 中国医科大学学报, 2009, 38(9): 709-713.
[9] 姚声, 周杰. 开放复位内固定手术治疗与保守治疗髁突骨折效果对比的Meta分析 [J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2013, 29(4): 219-222.
[10] Al-Moraissi EA, Ellis E 3rd. Surgical treatment of adult mandibular condylar fractures provides better outcomes than closed treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2015, 73(3): 482-493.
[11] Liu Y, Bai N, Song G, et al. Open versus closed treatment of unilateral moderately displaced mandibular condylar fractures: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2013, 116(2): 169-173.
[12] Danda AK, Muthusekhar MR, Narayanan V, et al. Open versus closed treatment of unilateral subcondylar and condylar neck fractures: a prospective, randomized clinical study[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2010, 68(6):1238-1241.
[13] Kotrashetti SM, Lingaraj JB, Khurana V. A comparative study of closed versus open reduction and internal fixation (using retromandibular approach) in the management of subcondylar fracture[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2013, 115(4): e7-11.
[14] Rastogi S, Sharma S, Kumar S, et al. Fracture of mandibular condyle-to open or not to open: an attempt to settle the controversy[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol, 2015, 119(6): 608-613.
[15] Colletti G, Battista VM, Allevi F, et al. Extraoral approach to mandibular condylar fractures: our experience with 100 cases [J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2014, 42(5): e186-194.
[16] Eckelt U, Schneider M, Erasmus F, et al. Open versus closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process-a prospective randomized multi-centre study [J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2006, 34(5): 306-314.
[17] Handschel J, Ruggeberg T, Depprich R, et al. Comparison of various approaches for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process [J]. J Craniomaxillofac Surg, 2012, 40(8): e397-401.
[18] Haug RH, Assael LA. Outcomes of open versus closed treatment of mandibular subcondylar fractures [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2001, 59(4): 370-375.
[19] Ellis E 3rd, Simon P, Throckmorton GS. Occlusal results after open or closed treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process [J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2000, 58(3): 260-268.
[20] Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0[EB/OL]. (2011-03-21)[2015-10-19]. http://www. cochrane-handbook.org.