Statement of the problem: Prognosis criteria are essential for making therapy decisions in the treatment of condylar neck fractures. According to the IAOMFS 1997 consensus conference, a proper therapy decision should primarily be based upon fracture localization and the degree of displacement or dislocation. For a long time the localization of condylar neck fracture was assumed to be of vital prognostic and therapeutic importance. An increasing degree of displacement or dislocation of the condyle out of the fossa will cause an increasing degree of damage to the joint capsule and the ligaments. Aim of this prospective, randomized multicenter study was to analyze the results of open and closed treatment. Functional and subjective parameters were evaluated with regard to fracture localization. Materials and Methods: 66 patients from seven international treatment centers with 79 condylar neck fractures were prospectively examined. The decision for open (n 30 patients) or closed (n 36 patients) treatment was randomised. Closed treatment was performed by elastic immobilization for 10 days. In cases of malocclusion a prolonged period of immobilization and, where necessary, physiotherapy followed. In cases of open treatment, the surgeon decided on the appropriate operative technique. Osteosynthesis was performed by miniplates, miniscrews or lag screws. Six months after trauma the patients were examined. Clinical (mouth opening, protrusion, laterotrusion), radiographic (localization) and subjective (pain-visual analogue scale [VAS], impairment – Mandibular Function Impairment Questionnaire [MFIQ]) examination parameters were recorded. Data Analysis: a) 66 patients, 79 condylar neck fractures b) 6 months c) Statistical planning and analysis was performed by the Institute of Biometry University Dresden using SPSS 12.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Results: Bilateral fractures receiving closed treatment showed significantly worse results in all categories. The 13 patients had bilateral fractures and exhibited a mouth opening of 36 mm (7 patients, 14 fractures) for closed treatment and 48 mm (6 patients, 12 fractures) for open treatment, p 0.001. Unilateral fractures showed a mouth opening of 42 mm (23 fractures) for closed treatment and 46 mm (30 fractures) for open treatment, p 0.003. Subjective parameters exhibited the highest level of pain with 25 mm VAS for closed treatment of bilateral fractures. Bilateral fractures receiving open treatment showed a VAS of 1 mm, p 0.001. Closed treatment of unilateral fractures showed a VAS 11 mm in contrast to 3 mm for fractures, receiving open treatment. The results were further approved by the measured degree of impairment – MFIQ. With regard to localization, the subjective degree of impairment was less pronounced for high condylar fractures. Conclusion: Open treatment with the aim of anatomical reconstruction of the joint shows significantly better treatment results in all evaluated categories for all fracture localizations. Interestingly, low fractures at the basis of the condylar neck exposed higher degrees of impairment and thus largely benefit from open treatment. Further, especially bilateral fractures benefit from open treatment. In these cases, treatment results of closed treatment are significantly inferior to open treatment which generally advocates open treatment.
Read full abstract