Extraoral versus endoscopic-assisted transoral treatment modalities for mandibular condylar fractures: a current opinion

Introduction

The management of mandibular condylar process fractures is one of the most contentious subjects in the specialty of oral and maxillofacial surgery. From an epidemiological standpoint, condylar fractures account for 29%–40% of all facial fractures [1]. Perhaps the most debated topic is the decision to perform open versus closed treatment for condylar fractures. At present, with advances in technology and healthcare, there has been a clear paradigm shift from closed treatment to open treatment, which involves open reduction and rigid internal fixation. Now that is clear that open treatment is favored by most surgical teams, the second argument relates to choosing the approach of open treatment, and in particular whether to choose an extraoral approach or an intraoral/transoral approach. Although the literature has presented relevant indications for choosing an approach, the maxillofacial surgical community is becoming more inclined towards the intraoral approach using an endoscope. A possible explanation for this trend relates to the complications of open surgical treatment. Perhaps the most dreaded complication of the extraoral approach is the risk of damage to the facial nerve, as the facial nerve branches are directly encountered in this approach [2]. In contrast, using an intraoral approach, the facial nerve is not encountered during dissection, obviating that risk. Furthermore, the extraoral approach also leaves an unesthetic scar on the face, which can be unpleasant for patients [2] [3]. With the intraoral approach, the surgical incision is made transorally; hence, the problem of the surgical scar is handled. Although the intraoral approach seems to have quite favorable benefits, the surgical procedure with an endoscope is complicated and requires a steep learning curve.

Publication History

Received: 30 April 2021

Accepted: 30 August 2021

Article published online:
22 May 2022

• REFERENCES

• 1 Shiju M, Rastogi S, Gupta P. et al. Fractures of the mandibular condyle: open versus closed: a treatment dilemma. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2015; 43: 448-51
• 2 Al-Moraissi EA, Louvrier A, Colletti G. et al. Does the surgical approach for treating mandibular condylar fractures affect the rate of seventh cranial nerve injuries? A systematic review and meta-analysis based on a new classification for surgical approaches. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018; 46: 398-412
• 3 Haug RH, Brandt MT. Traditional versus endoscope-assisted open reduction with rigid internal fixation (ORIF) of adult mandibular condyle fractures: a review of the literature regarding current thoughts on management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2004; 62: 1272-9
• 4 Schubert W, Jenabzadeh K. Endoscopic approach to maxillofacial trauma. J Craniofac Surg 2009; 20: 154-6
• 5 Handschel J, Ruggeberg T, Depprich R. et al. Comparison of various approaches for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condylar process. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2012; 40: e397-401
• 6 Schneider M, Lauer G, Eckelt U. Surgical treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle: a comparison of long-term results following different approaches: functional, axiographical, and radiological findings. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2007; 35: 151-60
• 7 Rozeboom A, Dubois L, Bos R. et al. Open treatment of unilateral mandibular condyle fractures in adults: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2017; 46: 1257-66
• 8 Shakya S, Zhang X, Liu L. Key points in surgical management of mandibular condylar fractures. Chin J Traumatol 2020; 23: 63-70
• 9 Han C, Dilxat D, Zhang X. et al. Does intraoperative navigation improve the anatomical reduction of intracapsular condylar fractures?. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76: 2583-91
• 10 Zeng W, Lian X, Chen G. et al. Digital diagnosis and treatment program for maxillofacial fractures: a retrospective analysis of 626 cases. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76: 1470-8
• 11 de Souza GM, Rodrigues DC, Celegatti Filho TS. et al. In-vitro comparison of mechanical resistance between two straight plates and a Y-plate for fixation of mandibular condyle fractures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018; 46: 168-72
• 12 Ganguly A, Mittal G, Garg R. Comparison between 3D delta plate and conventional miniplate in treatment of condylar fracture: a randomised clinical trial. J Craniomaxillofac Surg Feb 6 [Epub]. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2021.01.026.
• 13 Sukegawa S, Kanno T, Masui M. et al. Which fixation methods are better between three-dimensional anatomical plate and two miniplates for the mandibular subcondylar fracture open treatment?. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2019; 47: 771-7
• 14 Kanno T, Okuma S, Karino M. et al. Unexpected plate fracture in a three-dimensional subcondylar locking plate system. J Hard Tissue Biol 2016; 25: 442-6
• 15 Bischoff EL, Carmichael R, Reddy LV. Plating options for fixation of condylar neck and base fractures. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am 2017; 25: 69-73