Abstract
The aim of the study was to compare open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and endoscopic open reduction with internal fixation (EORIF) of condylar fractures (CF) in adults in terms of reducing both needing of reoperation and/or facial nerve injury.An electronic search was undertaken (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and The Cochrane Library). The inclusion criteria were full text, published from their inception to June 2020, clinical trials, randomized or not, and retrospective studies, that compared ORIF and EORIF. The estimates of an intervention were expressed as the risk ratio (RR).From the 1338 articles found, 5 publications were included. There was no statistically significant difference between ORIF and EORIF regarding needing of reoperation (RR = 2.46, p = 0.42) or facial nerve injury (RR = 0.45, p = 0.14).Meta-analysis suggests that there is no difference between open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) and endoscopic open reduction with internal fixation (EORIF) of condylar fractures (CF) regarding facial nerve injury risk or need for reoperation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
