Is the SMARTLock Hybrid Maxillomandibular Fixation System Comparable to Intermaxillary Fixation Screws in Closed Reduction of Condylar Fractures?

Abstract

Condylar fractures account for one third of all mandibular fractures. Despite being highly prevalent, treatment of these fractures remains controversial because of the sequelae of inadequate closed reduction and the risks associated with open repair. Multiple studies attempt to compare closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), open reduction with internal fixation, and endoscopic reduction with internal fixation. In our practice, we favor closed reduction with MMF except in cases of significantly displaced subcondylar fractures. To decrease operative MMF time, we moved away from traditional arch bars in favor of intermaxillary fixation screws (IMF screws). However, since the advent of the Stryker SMARTLock Hybrid Maxillomandibular Fixation System (Hybrid), we now use this system to maximize the advantages of having an arch bar, with its flexibility of elastic placement and ability to serve as tension band, in addition to the speed and simplicity of application similarly afforded by the IMF screws. The Hybrid system is shown to be cost effective compared with arch bars in a previous study. This is attributed to decreased operating room time. There are no studies comparing its outcomes and cost with IMF screws. In this article, we examine a series of patients treated with closed reduction using either IMF screws or the Stryker SMARTLock Hybrid Maxillomandibular Fixation System. We found similar result in patient outcomes and operative time, but increase cost with the Hybrid system.