Manual reduction to assist intraoperative maxillomandibular fixation may suffice for mandibular angle fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation

Focus on the use of maxillomandibular fixation in mandibular fracture oseosynthesis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of three methods of isolated mandibular fracture intraoperative reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This 6-year retrospective study included patients with isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures who would benefit from osteosynthesis. The endpoint was postoperative occlusion according to the type of intraoperative immobilization: screws, arch, or manual reduction.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were included, with 233 fractures. Forty-five patients underwent manual reduction without maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF), 51 MMF with screws, and 49 MMF with arch, with 11.1%, 5.9% and 4.1% of patients in these groups experiencing postoperative malocclusion, respectively. The overall malocclusion rate was 6.9%. There was no significant difference among the 3 methods according to univariate statistical analysis (p = 0.42) or after comparing MMF (grouping screws and arches) to manual reduction without MMF (p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

This study did not show a significant difference between the different methods of intraoperative reduction of isolated extra-articular mandibular fractures, even though intraoperative MMF was much more commonly used for complex fractures. However, there is a non-significant tendency to get a better post-operative occlusal result with MMF, which remains the reference traitement. Intraoperative manual reduction without MMF may be used within trained teams in some instances.

Is manual reduction adequate for intraoperative control of occlusion during fixation of mandibular fractures? A systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this systematic review was to find out if manual intraoperative control of occlusion is adequate for the reduction of mandibular fractures in comparison with intermaxillary fixation (IMF). We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Clinical Trials Registry, and the references of included trials. Our primary outcomes of interest were the reduction of fracture anatomically and radiographically, occlusal disturbances, and the incidence of revision procedures due to poor occlusion or reduction. Our secondary outcomes of interest were operating time and infective complications. Of the 257 studies retrieved (manual reduction = 136, IMF = 121), four were included. The studies had an unclear risk of bias. Nevertheless, the overall effect was statistically significant and in favour of manual reduction, with a lower number of adverse events in the manual reduction group (n = 43) than in the IMF group (n = 78), odds ratio 0.42 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.64). An absolute reduction in adverse events was seen in occlusion disturbances (120 fewer/1000), revision procedures (164 fewer/1000), and infective complications (178 fewer/1000). The evidence to support manual reduction over IMF for the intraoperative control of fracture fragments and occlusion was derived from few studies with an unclear risk of bias, and the quality was low. The results were not different when condylar fractures were present. The overall certainty of evidence was moderate. Clinicians should select the appropriate technique based on the injury pattern, and the treating surgeon's experience and available resources.