Postoperative Quality-of-Life Analysis of Open Versus Closed Reduction of Mandibular Condyle Fractures: Our Experience

Abstract

The treatment of unilateral mandibular condylar fractures remains a topic that continues to elicit controversy. Closed reduction with maxillomandibular fixation (CRMMF) and open reduction with internal fixation (ORIF) are two widely accepted treatment options. Several studies attempted to illustrate the advantage of ORIF by demonstrating better anatomical reduction and functional outcomes (Throckmorton & Ellis, 2000; Ishihama et al., 2007; Singh et al., 2011). However, a number of studies showed no significant differences in functional outcomes between the two procedures, and some favored CRMMF due to the lack of potential complications of ORIF, such as facial nerve paralysis and scarring (Landes et al., 2008; Leon et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2012). While many studies have attempted to solve this dilemma by comparing treatment outcomes, few have focused their analysis on patients’ quality-of-life (QoL) and data on this aspect are inconclusive (Kommers, 2012). The purpose of this study is to compare ORIF and CRMMF in terms of patients’ QoL through a survey-based patient-centered analysis in an attempt to influence surgical decision making in the treatment of unilateral condylar fractures.