Subcondylar mandible fractures: A review and analysis of outcomes

Lindsay Eisler, Rick M Odland

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Objective: Identify patients treated for subcondylar mandible fracture, review complications, compare treatment groups, and compare outcomes of patients treated with different modalities. Setting: Level 1 trauma center Methods: Retrospective review and outcome study of 300 patients. Results: Ninety three patients had isolated subcondylar fractures and two hundred and seven had a subcondylar fracture and an additional mandible fracture. All patients' charts were reviewed for mechanism of injury, presence of additional mandible or facial fractures, treatment plan, complications, and average follow up. Patients were divided into treatment groups; conservative, maxillomandibular fixation, and open reduction internal fixation. Averages of fracture measurements were determined for each treatment group. All patients were sent follow up questionnaires. The questionnaires addressed range of motion, function, occlusion, temporomandibular joint problem, static and dynamic pain, compliance with treatment, facial appearance and overall satisfaction with results. The questionnaires had a four point scoring system. Summary: No significant difference was observed between treatment groups, suggesting that displacement of fracture from mandibular condyle did not dictate treatment plan. Results from the returned questionnaires showed overall satisfied with their post operative range of motion, function, appearance, and occlusion. Patients overall did not suffer from problems with the temporomandibular joint. Patients did however endorse both static and dynamic pain. Overall patients were satisfied with their post treatment results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)S69
JournalLaryngoscope
Volume121
Issue numberSUPPL. 4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2011

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Subcondylar mandible fractures: A review and analysis of outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this