Episode Details
Back to Episodes
π βWhat Are Primary Surgical Options To Repair A Subcondylar Fracture?β
Description
Quick Review #272 - #surgery #surgeon #doctorgallagher #oralsurgery #oralsurgeon #omfs #dentist #dentistry #dental
- 3.19.25
The primary treatment options for reducing a subcondylar neck/ramus fracture include both open and closed techniques, with the choice depending on factors such as displacement, occlusion, functional needs, and associated injuries.
1. Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF)
β’ Indication: ORIF is recommended for significantly displaced fractures, functional deviation, occlusal discrepancies, or bilateral condylar fractures with a risk of open bite.
β’ Technique: A preauricular, retromandibular, or transoral approach is commonly used to expose the fracture, followed by fixation using mini-plates or lag screws.
Advantages:
β’ Direct visualization of the fracture
β’ Anatomical reduction and rigid fixation
β’ Immediate function restoration
Disadvantages:
β’ Surgical risks: facial nerve injury, scarring, and infection
β’ Longer operative time
2. Closed Reduction with Maxillomandibular Fixation (MMF)
β’ Indication: Non-displaced or minimally displaced fractures, patients with contraindications for surgery, or pediatric cases.
β’ Technique: Application of arch bars, intermaxillary elastics, or Erich arch bars to maintain occlusion for 2β4 weeks.
Advantages:
β’ Minimally invasive, avoiding surgical risks
β’ Effective in stable fractures
Disadvantages:
β’ Prolonged immobilization can lead to TMJ dysfunction or ankylosis
β’ Patient discomfort, requiring dietary modification
3. Functional Treatment (Early Mobilization with Guiding Elastics)
β’ Indication: Minimally displaced fractures, particularly in children or cooperative adults.
β’ Technique: Uses guiding elastics or occlusal splints to assist in functional adaptation while allowing controlled motion.
Advantages:
β’ Avoids rigid immobilization
β’ Reduces risk of TMJ stiffness or ankylosis
Disadvantages:
β’ Requires patient compliance
β’ Not suitable for significantly displaced fractures
References:
1. Foster, C. M. B., & Chew, F. S. (2016). Fractures and dislocations of the face. In Broken Bones: The Radiologic Atlas of Fractures and Dislocations (pp. 318β339). Cambridge University Press.
2. Bayat, M., Parvin, M., & Meybodi, A. A. (2016). Mandibular subcondylar fractures: A review on treatment strategies. Electronic Physician, 8(10), 3144β3149
3. Oyer, S. L., & Boochoon, K. S. (2023). Treatment of subcondylar fractures of the mandible: A shifting paradigm. AAO-HNS Bulletin
4. Kuang, S.-J., He, Y.-Q., Zheng, Y.-H., & Zhang, Z.-G. (2019). Open reduction and internal fixation of mandibular condylar fractures: A national inpatient sample analysis, 2005β2014. Medicine, 98(37), e16814
5. ChatGPT. 2025
#podcast #dentalpodcast #doctorgallagherpodcast #doctorgallagherspodcast #doctor #dentist #dentistry #oralsurgery #dental #dentalschool #dentalstudent #doctorlife #dentistlife #oralsurgeon #doctorgallagher