 |
|
Considerations in Subcondylar Fracture Management
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130:1231-1232.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
Perhaps no area of facial trauma has inspired more controversy than the management of mandibular subcondylar fractures. Fractures of the condylar region occur frequently, representing more than 30% of all mandible fractures, and they have been treated with either closed or open reduction techniques, and with similar outcomes.1-3 Proponents of each technique cite the advantages and disadvantages of one over the other. For example, the "open" surgeons claim better anatomic reduction and postoperative radiographic appearance, while the "closed" surgeons favor a conservative approach with potentially fewer surgical complications and acceptable long-term functional results. Although certain factors have been proposed as relative and/or absolute indications for an open approach,4 an individual determination must be made in each case. In general, the treatment algorithm is based on patient age, unilateral vs bilateral subcondylar fractures, presence of associated fractures, axial inclination of the condylar head (>35°), level of fracture in the ramus, intracapsular . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Michael Miloro, DMD, MD
RELATED ARTICLES
Treatment of Adult Subcondylar Mandibular Fractures: Closed vs Open vs Endoscopic Approach
Emre Vural
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(10):1228-1230.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Early Mobilization Advocated in Subcondylar Fractures
Robert M. Kellman
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2004;130(10):1230-1231.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
