Current Strategies for Treatment of Mandibular Fractures With Plate Osteosynthesis: A European Prospective Study

PURPOSE

The training and preferences of surgeons influence the type of surgical treatment for mandibular fractures. This multicentre prospective study analyzed the current treatment strategies and outcomes for mandibular fractures with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study included patients aged ≥16 years who underwent ORIF for mandibular fractures in 12 European maxillofacial centers. Age, sex, pretrauma dental status, fracture cause, site and type, associated facial fractures, surgical approach, plate number and thickness (≤1.4 or ≥1.5 mm), duration of postoperative maxillomandibular fixation, occlusal and infective complications at 6 weeks and 3 months, and revision surgeries were recorded.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2021 and April 30, 2022, 425 patients (194 single, 182 double, and 49 triple mandibular fractures) underwent ORIF for 1 or more fractures. Rigid osteosynthesis was performed for 74% of fractures and was significantly associated with displaced (P=0.01) and comminuted (P=0.03) fractures and with the number of nonsurgically treated fracture sites (P=0.002). The angle was the only site associated with nonrigid osteosynthesis (P<0.001). Malocclusions (5.6%) and infective complications (5.4%) were not associated with osteosynthesis type.

CONCLUSION

Rigid osteosynthesis was the most frequently performed treatment at all fracture sites, except the mandibular angle, and was significantly associated with displaced and comminuted fractures and the number of nonsurgically treated fracture sites. No significant differences were observed regarding postoperative malocclusion or infections among osteosynthesis types.

Manual versus rigid intraoperative maxillo-mandibular fixation in the surgical management of mandibular fractures: A European prospective analysis

PURPOSE

Intraoperative stabilisation of bony fragments with maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF) is an essential step in the surgical treatment of mandibular fractures that are treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The MMF can be performed with or without wire-based methods, rigid or manual MMF, respectively. The aim of this study was to compare the use of manual versus rigid MMF, in terms of occlusal outcomes and infective complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This multi-centric prospective study involved 12 European maxillofacial centres and included adult patients (age ≥16 years) with mandibular fractures treated with ORIF. The following data were collected: age, gender, pre-trauma dental status (dentate or partially dentate), cause of injury, fracture site, associated facial fractures, surgical approach, modality of intraoperative MMF (manual or rigid), outcome (minor/major malocclusions and infective complications) and revision surgeries. The main outcome was malocclusion at 6 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

Between May 1, 2021 and April 30, 2022, 319 patients-257 males and 62 females (median age, 28 years)-with mandibular fractures (185 single, 116 double and 18 triple fractures) were hospitalised and treated with ORIF. Intraoperative MMF was performed manually on 112 (35%) patients and with rigid MMF on 207 (65%) patients. The study variables did not differ significantly between the two groups, except for age. Minor occlusion disturbances were observed in 4 (3.6%) patients in the manual MMF group and in 10 (4.8%) patients in the rigid MMF group (p > .05). In the rigid MMF group, only one case of major malocclusion required a revision surgery. Infective complications involved 3.6% and 5.8% of patients in the manual and rigid MMF group, respectively (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative MMF was performed manually in nearly one third of the patients, with wide variability among the centres and no difference observed in terms of number, site and displacement of fractures. No significant difference was found in terms of postoperative malocclusion among patients treated with manual or rigid MMF. This suggests that both techniques were equally effective in providing intraoperative MMF.

European multicenter prospective analysis of the use of maxillomandibular fixation for mandibular fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation

INTRODUCTION

The goal of mandibular fracture treatment is to restore static and dynamic occlusal functions. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of these fractures can be associated with an intraoperative and/or postoperative maxillo-mandibular fixation (MMF). The aim of this study was to analyse the use of perioperative MMF and its effects on occlusal outcomes in the management of mandibular fractures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This multicentric prospective study included adult patients with mandibular fractures treated with ORIF. The following data were collected: age, gender, pre-trauma dental status (dentate, partially dentate), cause of injury, fracture site, associated facial fractures, surgical approach, type of ORIF (rigid, non-rigid or mixed), thickness and number of plates, modality of intraoperative MMF (arch bars, self-tapping and self-drilling screws [STSDSs], manual, other) and duration of postoperative MMF. The primary outcome was malocclusion at 6 weeks and 3 months. Statistical analyses were performed with Fisher's exact test or chi-square test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Between 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, 336 patients, 264 males and 72 females (median age, 28 years) with mandibular fractures (194 single, 124 double and 18 triple fractures) were hospitalized. Intraoperative MMF was performed in all patients. Osteosynthesis was rigid in 75% of single fractures, and rigid or mixed in 85% and 100% of double and triple fractures, respectively. Excluding patients who underwent manual reduction, postoperative MMF (median duration, 3 weeks) was performed in 140 (64%) patients, without differences by type or number of fractures (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in the incidence of malocclusion in patients with postoperative MMF (5%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2-10%) compared to those without (4%; 95% IC, 1-11%) (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative MMF was performed in more than half of the patients despite adequate fracture osteosynthesis, with wide variability amongst centers. No evidence of a reduction in the incidence of postoperative malocclusion in patients treated with postoperative MMF was found.